• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제13권5호
• /
• pp.223-233
• /
• 2013

경매에 있어 압류등기가 행해지면 부동산에 대한 처분제한의 효력이 공시되고, 그 후의 부동산 소유자에 의한 처분행위는 압류채권자 및 경락인에게 대항할 수 없어 그에 대한 관계에서 효력을 잃게 되므로, 위압류 또는 가압류에 대항할 수 없는 처분행위를 원인으로 한 등기는 직권말소된다. 따라서 가압류의 처분금지효에 의해 경락인에 대한 관계에서 상대적으로 소유권을 상실하는 승계인이 있는 경우, 관습상 법정지상권의 성립요건으로서 건물소유자와 토지소유자의 동일성은 가압류시점을 기준으로 판단하여야 한다. 실제로 부동산강제경매절차에 참여하는 이해관계인들도 가압류시점을 기준으로 하여 자신의 이해관계를 조정하므로, 가압류시(假押留時)가 아닌 경락시(競落時)를 기준으로 관습상 법정지상권을 인정할 경우 토지소유자에게는 불측의 손해를 초래하고, 건물소유자에게는 망외의 이익을 안겨주는 불합리한 결과가 초래될 수 있다. 대상판결이 이와 같은 취지에서 관여 대법관 전원일치의 전원합의체 판결로서 가압류시설(假押留時說)을 취하고, 이와 달리 경락시설(競落時說)을 취한 1990년 판결을 폐기한 것은 매우 타당하다.

• 월간 기계설비
• /
• 9호통권194호
• /
• pp.54-55
• /
• 2006

공사대금에 대한 압류나 가압류가 이루어진 경우 하도급대금 직접 지급 가능 여부와 관련한 논란에 대해 사업부가 가능하다는 판결을 내려 주목된다. 전주지방 법원 제2민사부 (재판장 조현욱 판사)는 "기성금의 청구일자보다 제3 채권자의 압류나 가압류일 자가 앞선다고 하더라도 직접지급합의서가 제3채권자의 압류나 가압류보다 먼저 작성됐다면 발주자는 하도급대금을 수급사업자에게 직접 지급해야 한다"고 판결했다. 3개의 전문건설업체가 전주국도유지건설사무소를 상대로 '하도급대금을 직접 지급해 달라'고 청구한 소송에서 재판부는 "발주자가 하도급대금을 수급사업자에게 직접 지급하기로 발주자,원사업자,수급사업자 간에 합의한 경우에는 '그 합의한 때' 발주자의 원사업자에 대한 대금지급채무는 소멸된다'며 이같이 판결했다. 이번 판결이 하도급거래공정화에 관한 법률 제14조 제 2항에서 규정하고 있는 '발주자의 원사업자에 대한 대금지급채무의 소멸시기'가 '수급사업자가 하도급대금의 직접 지급을 요청한 때'가 아닌 '발주자,원사업자,수급사업자 간에 직불을 합의한 때'임을 분명히 한 것이어서 하도급대금 직불에 미온적이었던 발주기관들의 관행을 개선시키는 계기가 될 것으로 예상된다.

• 전기기술인
• /
• 통권301호
• /
• pp.48-48
• /
• 2007

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.261-301
• /
• 2016

Recently the abusive calls on on-demand bonds have been a critical issue among many engineering and construction companies in Korea. On-demand bond is referred to as an independent guarantee in the sense that the guarantee is independent from its underlying contract although it was issued based on such underlying contract. For this reason, the issuing bank is not required to and/or entitled to look into whether there really is a breach of underlying contract in relation to the call on demand-bonds. Due to this kind of principle of independence, the applicant has to run the risk of the on demand bond being called by the beneficiary without due grounds. Only where the call proves to be fraudulent or abusive in a very clear way, the issuing bank would not be obligated to pay the bond proceeds for the call on on-demand bonds. In order to prevent the issuing bank from paying the proceeds under the on-demand bond, the applicant usually files with its competent court an application for injunction prohibiting the beneficiary from calling against the issuing bank. However, it is in practice difficult for the applicant to prove the beneficiary's call on the bond to be fraudulent since the courts in almost all the jurisdictions of advanced countries require very strict and objective evidences such as the documents which were signed by the owner (beneficiary) or any other third party like the engineer. There is another way of preventing the beneficiary from calling on the bond, which is often utilized especially in the United Kingdom or Western European countries such as Germany. Based upon the underlying contract, the contractor which is at the same time the applicant of on-demand bond requests the court to order the owner (the beneficiary) not to call on the bond. In this case, there apparently seems to be no reason why the court should apply the strict fraud rule to determine whether to grant an injunction in that the underlying legal relationship was created based on a construction contract rather than a bond. However, in most jurisdictions except for United Kingdom and Singapore, the court also applies the strict fraud rule on the ground that the parties promised to make the on-demand bond issued under the construction contract. This kind of injunction is highly unlikely to be utilized on the international level because it is very difficult in normal situations to establish the international jurisdiction towards the beneficiary which will be usually located outside the jurisdiction of the relevant court. This kind of injunction ordering the owner not to call on the bond can be rendered by the arbitrator as well even though the arbitrator has no coercive power for the owner to follow it. Normally there would be no arbitral tribunal existing at the time of the bond being called. In this case, the emergency arbitrator which most of the international arbitration rules such as ICC, LCIA and SIAC, etc. adopt can be utilized. Finally, the contractor can block the issuing bank from paying the bond proceeds by way of a provisional attachment in case where it also has rights to claim some unpaid interim payments or damages. This is the preservative measure under civil law system, which the lawyers from common law system are not familiar with. As explained in this article, it is very difficult to block the issuing bank from paying in response to the bond call by the beneficiary even if the call has no valid ground under the underlying construction contract. Therefore, it is necessary for the applicants who are normally engineering and construction companies to be prudent to make on-demand bonds issued. They need to take into account the creditability of the project owner as well as trustworthiness of the judiciary system of the country where the owner is domiciled.