10 KHU 글로벌기업법무리뷰제 2 권제 1 호 이매우인상적이었다. 시대를관통하는사회규범을수호하면서새로운학설을창도한위대 한작업 (Great Works) 이라고부를수있을것이다. II. 미국케이스 : Kirksey v. Kirksey 8 Ala. 131 (1845) Fac

연구노트 시대와사회를초월한名判決 박훤일 * 편집자주 경희대학교법학전문대학원 ( 로스쿨 ) 이정식출범함에따라이번호부터는로스쿨재학생들이편집위원회를구성하고제작에도주도적으로참여하고있다. 로스쿨에서는학부에서의전공과상관없이일정수준의소양을갖추었다고판단되는학생들이입학하여장차훌륭한법조인이될수있도록교육훈련을받게된다. 중요한과제중의하나가 Case Study, 즉시대와사회의요청에따라주요법리가어떻게발전해왔는지리딩케이스를공부하는일이다. 더욱이경희대법학전문대학원의특성화분야는글로벌기업법무이다. 비록우리와법제는달라도영국과미국, 독일, 일본등외국의법적지성이고심하여내린판결을조사검토함으로써국경이없는보편적인진리를발견할수있다고생각된다. 본고는당초로스쿨강의교재로만들었던것 ( 외국판결의원문이소개되어있음 ) 을본지의취지에맞게수정한것이다. 1) I. 명판결이란 케이스중심으로법공부를하다보면종종우리를감동시키는명판결을대하게된다. 특히케이스로를중시하는영미법을공부할때에는명판결을내린법관의이름까지도기억하게되는데법학도라면자기도언젠가이렇게이름을남기고싶다는 로망 을품게마련이다. 사실미국의로스쿨에서는 100개이상의주요판례 (case brief) 를외워야한다는말을듣게된다. 이러한명판결은당시에는비록소수의견에머물렀을지라도만인의지성과심금을울려판례를바꾸고사회의통념을변혁시키는계기를만들기도한다. 무엇보다도명판결의반열에오르려면기존학설과판례를뒤엎는새로운법리를전개함으로써후대의법률이론과판례에막대한영향력을줄수있어야한다. 명판결중에는시대와사회의변화를내다본선각자적인것도많고, 만고불변의진리를체화한것도적지않다. 그중의하나가 이웃과조화롭게살고, 고아와과부를구제하라 는어느사회에서나요구되는윤리규범이다. 다음소개하는두개의케이스는필자가미국로스쿨을다닐때공부했던미국과영국의판례이다. 사안이집안의불화와다툼에서비롯된것이어서법률이나법관이함부로간섭할수없는영역임에도이것을 정의와양심 (justice and conscience) 의이름으로해결을도모한것 * 경희대학교법학전문대학원부교수, 국제법무대학원부원장, 법학박사.

10 KHU 글로벌기업법무리뷰제 2 권제 1 호 이매우인상적이었다. 시대를관통하는사회규범을수호하면서새로운학설을창도한위대 한작업 (Great Works) 이라고부를수있을것이다. II. 미국케이스 : Kirksey v. Kirksey 8 Ala. 131 (1845) Facts The plaintiff was the wife of defendant s brother, but had for some time been a widow, and had several children. In 1840, the plaintiff resided on public land, under a contract of lease, she had held over, and was comfortably settled, and would have attempted to secure the land she lived on. The defendant resided in Talladega county, some sixty, or seventy miles off. On the 10th October, 1840, he wrote to her the following letter: Dear sister Antillico -- Much to my mortification, I heard, that brother Henry was dead, and one of his children. I know that your situation is one of grief, and difficulty. You had a bad chance before, but a great deal worse now. I should like to come and see you, but cannot with convenience at present. * * * I don t know whether you have a preference on the place you live on, or not. If you had, I would advise you to obtain your preference, and sell the land and quit the country, as I understand it is very unhealthy, and I know society is very bad. If you will come down and see me, I will let you have a place to raise your family, and I have more open land than I can tend; and on the account of your situation, and that of your family, I feel like I want you and the children to do well. Within a month or two after the receipt of this letter, the plaintiff abandoned her possession, without disposing of it, and removed with her family, to the residence of the defendant, who put her in comfortable houses, and gave her land to cultivate for two years, at the end of which time he notified her to remove, and put her in a house, not comfortable, in the woods, which he afterwards required her to leave. A verdict being found for the plaintiff, for two hundred dollars, the above facts were agreed, and if they will sustain the action, the judgment is to be affirmed, otherwise it is to be reversed. 1845 년미국앨라바마주대법원이판결한이사건의개요는다음과같다. 남편과사별하고 자식들을어렵게키우고있는형수를측은히여기고시동생이편지를보냈다. 1) 형님을여의 1) 원고와피고의이름이같은것은같은姓을가진한집안사람이라는의미이다. 형수인지제수인지분명치않으나일단형편이넉넉한시동생이외지에나가홀로된형수를위로한것이라고추측하였다.

2009 시대와사회를초월한名判決 11 고사정이매우딱한것을아는데토지와가재를정리하고오시면조카들과살집과농사지을땅을드리겠노라 는내용이었다. 과부는시숙의말만믿고버리다시피가재도구를정리한후 60마일이나떨어진곳으로이사를왔다. 시동생은처음 2년간은좋은집과농토를제공하였으나그후마음이바뀌어형수와조카를허름한집으로옮기게하였다가종국에는그의땅에서몰아냈다. 그러자과부가시동생을약속을위반한것이라고제소하였다. 배심원평결은과부편을들었지만고지식한법관들은기존법원칙에충실하여그과부로하여금피눈물을흘리게만들었다. 오르몬드대법관의판결 Ormond, J. The inclination of my mind, is, that the loss and inconvenience, which the plaintiff sustained in breaking up, and moving to the defendant s, a distance of sixty miles, is a sufficient consideration to support the promise, to furnish her with a house, and land to cultivate, until she could raise her family. My brothers, however think, that the promise on the part of the defendant, was a mere gratuity, and that an action will not lie for its breach. The judgment of the Court below must therefore be reversed, pursuant to the agreement of the parties. 내마음은, 원고가가산을정리하고피고의집으로이사가기위해 60마일이나되는거리를이동하면서겪어야했던상실감과불편함이약인 ( 約因 ) 이되기에충분하다는것에기울었다. 원고가자녀를키울수있을때까지그녀에게집을주고경작을할토지를주기로한약속은지켜야한다는말이다. 그러나동료대법관들은피고의약속이단지무상의증여일뿐이를지키지않았다하여소송을할수는없다고한다. 그러므로원심판결은당사자들의합의에따라파기하지않을수없다. Issue 이사건의쟁점은피고가집과땅을주겠다고한약속이일방적인혜택을베푸는것임에도서로주고받는교섭 (bargain for exchange), 즉약인 (consideration) 이있었다고볼수있느냐하는것이었다. 왜냐하면고전적인계약법이론 (Classic Contract Theory) 에의하면, 승낙자가주고받고교섭한것, 즉약인이없으면계약이성립하지않고소송을통해청약자로하여금약속을이행하도록강제할수없다 (unenforceable) 고보았기때문이다. Comment 이러한결론은기독교정신에입각하여나라를세운미국인의양심상받아들이기괴로운 일이었다. 성경은여러곳에서 네이웃을사랑하라 라든가 과부와고아를동정하라 는하나님

12 KHU 글로벌기업법무리뷰제 2 권제 1 호 의말씀을전하고있다. 2) 위의오르몬드판사가소수의견으로 모든것을버리고불편함을참아가며 96km라는거리를아이들을이끌고이사를간과부에게객관적으로 약인 이라고할만한것은없더라도그녀가자식을키울수있을때까지집을갖고밭을갈수있도록시동생이약속을지키게하고싶다 고판결문말미에술회한것은장차판례와이론을뒤엎는도화선이되었다. 그리하여많은법학자들이반성을하고궁리에궁리를거듭한끝에 비록일방적인약속일지언정상대방이이것을믿고 (reliance) 신분상 재산상의변동을초래하였으면약속을한사람 (offerer) 은약인이없다는주장을할수없다 는근대화된계약법이론 (Modern Contract Theory) 을탄생시켰다. 3) 실제로 1898년네브라스카주대법원은 리케츠 케이스 (Ricketts v. Scothorn) 4) 에서근대화된계약법이론을따랐다. 할아버지가손녀딸에게직장을그만두면생활비를대주겠다고약속하였는데, 할아버지말을믿고사직을한원고가아무런반대급부 ( 對價 ) 를제공하지못했다할지라도피고의말을전적으로신뢰하고수입을포기한이상피고는약인의부재, 즉계약불성립이라는주장을하지못한다고했다. 커크시사건이조금만늦게미국법정에서다투어졌더라면법원은당연히불쌍한과부편을들었을것이다. 그결과계약법제2차리스테이트먼트 (Restatement) 5) 에서는약속이아닌행동, 일정한행동의억제 (forbearance), 법률관계의형성 변경 폐지도약인이될수있다고본다. 기존의무를이행하는것은약인으로볼수없으나, 약인이청약자의이익또는상대방의손실 (detriment) 이되거나상호의존적 (mutuality) 일필요는없다 ( 제71조 ). 그러나상대방의약속을믿고 (reliance) 자신의지위를변동시킨경우 ( 제90조 ) 또는약속을한사람이그약속으로부터이익을받은경우 ( 제86조 ) 에는정의 (justice) 의관념에입각하여그약속을강제할수있다고한다. 예를들자면대출계약서 (loan agreement) 에전형적인약인에해당하는보증금 (deposit) 같은것을내놓지않았을지라도차주가여러가지작위 부작위의약속을하는것만으로도약인이된다고보아 (in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained herein) 계약의성립내지강제이행의근거로서인정하고있는것이다. 2) 성경에서는거의전편에걸쳐소외계층인고아와과부를구제하고그들이억울한일을당하지않도록돌볼것을명하고 ( 신명기 10:18, 야고보 1:27), 그들을핍박하는자는벌을받게됨을경고하고있다 ( 출애굽기 22:22-24, 마가 12:40, 누가 20:47). 3) 필자가미국댈러스소재 SMU 로스쿨에서수학할당시평소빈틈없는케이스스터디강의로명성이자자했던예일대출신의크레스피교수는교양강좌를방불케할정도로커크시케이스의후폭풍에대하여설명하고자신의견해를밝혔다. 4) 57 Neb. 51, 77 N.W. 365 (1898) 5) 미국법조협회 (American Legal Institute: ALI) 가기존판례의골자를일목요연하게조문형식으로再錄정리한것을말한다. 이것은엄밀히말해서판례와같은법원은아니지만그에가까운권위를인정받고있다. 계약법뿐만아니라불법행위법 (Torts), 소송법, 법의저촉 (Conflict of Laws) 등거의모든법률분야에걸쳐리스테이트먼트가 1 판, 2 판하는식으로계속수정 보완되고있다.

2009 시대와사회를초월한名判決 13 III. 영국케이스 : Hussey v. Palmer [1972] 1. W.L.R. 1286 Facts The plaintiff, an elderly widow, was invited to live with her daughter and son-in-law, the defendant, in the house where they lived with their family. A bedroom was built on as an extension for the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid 607 for the cost of the extension herself. After living there for 15 months differences arose and the plaintiff left. She claimed in the county court against the defendant, who was the owner of the house, for the 607 as money lent. The case was heard by consent by the registrar who intimated that it was not a loan but a family arrangement. The plaintiff elected to be nonsuited and issued a fresh plaint claiming the 607 on a resulting trust. In the second action the plaintiff gave evidence that she had lent the money to the defendant and said in cross-examination: They would give me a home for life, if I wanted it. The judge held that there was no case for a resulting trust and gave judgment for the defendant. On appeal by the plaintiff: - - 홀로살던허시노부인은사위인팔머씨가함께살자고제안하여딸네집으로옮겨살게되었다. 할머니가거처할방을새로들여야했기에할머니가그건축비용을부담했다. 그러나 15 개월후뜻이안맞아할머니는그집을나왔다. 그리고사위에게증축비 607 파운드는빌려준돈이니갚으라고말했으나사위는증여받은돈이므로갚을필요가없다며버텼다. 급기야빌려준돈 (loan) 이냐가족간에거저준돈 (family arrangement) 이냐를놓고소송이벌어져, 할머니는법정에서딸내외가여생을보낼집을준다고해서빌려줬으나집을나왔으니 607 파운드를돌려받아야한다고주장했다. 법원은 [ 처음부터신탁설정의의사가없었으니 ] 복귀신탁 (resulting trust) 으로볼수없다며원고패소판결을내렸고, 허시부인은이에불복항소했다. Ruling Held, allowing the appeal (Cairns L.J. dissenting), that since the payment by the plaintiff for the extension to the house was not intended as a gift and there were no arrangements for its repayment it was against conscience for the defendant to retain the benefit of it without repayment and he held the property on a resulting or (per Lord Denning M.R.) constructive trust for the plaintiff proportionate to her payment (post, pp. 1289H-1290A, D, G, H, 1291D, E, G). Per Cairns L.J. The plaintiff paid the 607 as a loan and that was quite inconsistent with a resulting trust (post, p. 1292E).

14 KHU 글로벌기업법무리뷰제 2 권제 1 호 데닝경 (Lord Denning M.R.) 6) 이내린항소심판결은원고승소였다. 그이유는원고가피고에게증여를한것이아니었고, 상환조건에관한합의는없었지만피고가그돈을반환하지않고그이익을계속누리는것은 정의와선한양심 에반하는것이며, 피고가원고가비용을부담한만큼의의제신탁 (constructive trust) 이포함된재산을갖기때문이라는것이었다. 그러나케언스판사는문제의 607 파운드는빌려준돈일뿐복귀신탁으로볼여지가없다는소수의견을냈다. Issue 1 1심과항소심에서문제가된것은과연원고가준돈으로집을증축하였으니원고가증축된집의일부에대하여신탁수익자로서의권리 (beneficial interest) 를갖느냐하는것이었다. 7) 얼핏보아도신탁에관한기존법리로는복귀신탁이라고인정하기어려운데, 왜데닝경은 의제신탁 이라는말까지만들어가면서까지할머니를동정하는판결을내려야했는지그의판결문을자세히읽어보기로하자. Lord Denning M.R. This case is of very considerable interest. Mrs. Emily Hussey, the plaintiff, is getting on in years. She is well over 70 and an old age pensioner. In 1967 she had a little house which was in a very dilapidated condition. It was condemned. She sold it for the sum of 1,100. She had a daughter who was married to a Mr. Palmer, the defendant. Mr. and Mrs. Palmer had two children and lived at no. 9 Stanley Road, Wokingham. It belonged to Mr. Palmer. When the mother sold her little house, the young couple invited her to go and live with them. That often happens, But there was not much room for them all. So they built on a bedroom as an extension for the old lady. She paid for it. She paid 607 for it in June and September 1967. She paid it direct to the builder, Mr. May. Nobody said anything about repayment. No doubt they all thought that the old lady would go and live there, using the bedroom, for the rest of her days. For a few months all went well. The old lady used to make payments to the daughter if she 6) 본명은 Alfred Thompson Denning(1899-1999). 1921 년옥스퍼드대학을졸업하고 1923 년소송변호사 (Barrister) 자격을취득하였으며, 1938 년에는칙선 ( 勅選 ) 변호사 (King s Counsel), 1944 년고등법원 (High Court) 판사, 1948 년항소법원판사 (Lord Justice of Appeal) 를거쳐, 1957 년상임상소귀족 (Lord of Appeal in Ordinary) 이되었다. 1962 년부터기록장관 (Master of the Rolls: MR) 이되어 1982 년퇴임할때까지재직하였다. 저서로는 Freedom Under the Law(1949), The Discipline of Law(1979), The Due Process of Law(1980), What Next in the Law(1982), The Closing Chapter(1983), Leaves from My Library(1986) 등이있다. 田中英夫 ( 다나카히데오 ) 編, 英米法辭典 ( 이하 英美法辭典 ), 東京大學出版會 (1998), 932 면 ; 영국에서수학한채이식교수에의하면데닝경은 법관들은소송을벌이는사람들이실제로어떻게살고있는지 3 류소설도읽어보아야한다 고즐겨말했다고한다. 7) 원고의항소이유중의하나는 1 심법원에서당사자간에돈을빌려주는묵시적인합의가있었다고인정한다면청구취지의변경을허락했어야하는데 1 심법원이이를거부했다는것이었다.

2009 시대와사회를초월한名判決 15 was short of money. But then differences arose. I am afraid that mothers and daughters do not always get on when they are living in the same house. After about 15 months they could not live in harmony any more in the house. So in March 1968, Mrs. Hussey went and lived elsewhere, leaving the Palmers there in their house. After a year or so, Mrs. Hussey wrote to her son-in-law and said she was very hard up. She asked if he could manage 1 or 1 10s a week to help her out. He did not do it. He did not even reply. So she asked for the money back, the 607 which she had paid for the extension. They did not pay. She got legal aid. 데닝경은원고가 70세가넘은할머니로서연금을받아생활하는처지이고, 그전에살던집은아주누추하여그집을 1100 파운드받고팔았는데두자녀를둔딸내외가할머니를모시겠다고했을때방이부족하여증축이불가피했으며, 할머니가건축업자에게 607 파운드를직접지급했다는기초가된사실관계를친절하게설명했다. 당시그돈의상환조건에대하여는아무런언급이없었고, 딸의생활비가모자랄때면종종할머니가돈을보태주기도하였음을밝혔다. 그러나 1년여만에그들사이가벌어졌고할머니는딸네집에서나왔으며, 형편이어려우니사위에게 1주일에 1 파운드씩이라도보태달라고편지를보냈으나사위가용돈을드리기는커녕답장조차하지않자할머니는정식으로 607 파운드를돌려달라고요구하고법적인도움을받기에이르렀다고말했다. In April 1970, she took out a default summons in the county court against Mr. Palmer. She claimed 607 for money lent. Mr. Palmer wrote a defence in his own hand. He said: The payments, made to a builder, were not a loan, but were paid by the plaintiff for her own benefit and at the time the question of repayment was not raised. I assumed that the payments were in effect a gift. Later on, Mr. Palmer got legal aid too, and, with the help of legal advisers, he put in an amended defence in which he denied liability. He said that the moneys were only to be repaid in the event of the defendants house, 9 Stanley Road, Wokingham, being sold within a short period of building works having been completed by the said Mr. May. The said building works were mainly in respect of an extension to the said house, which extension was for occupation by the plaintiff. He also said that the said agreement was merely a family arrangement and was not intended to have legal consequences. 데닝경이주목한것은피고인사위의태도였다. 피고는할머니가자신의이익을위하여직접건축업자에게직접지급한것이고피고에게갚으라는말이없었으니증여라고주장했다. 피고는나중에변호사의도움을받아할머니의돈은그집을증축한직후에팔아서갚을수밖에없었는데, 증축한방은할머니가쓰고있었으니애당초불가능했다고답변서를수정하였

16 KHU 글로벌기업법무리뷰제 2 권제 1 호 다. 즉법적인효과가없는가족간의일 (family arrangement) 에불과하다는것이었다. On February 10, 1971, the case came before the county court. The judge was fully occupied with another case. So it went before the registrar by consent. The registrar heard the evidence of Mrs. Hussey and also Mr Palmer. He intimated a strong view that this was not a loan at all: but that it was a family arrangement. Mrs. Hussey s advisers were so impressed that they submitted to a non-suit and started a fresh action. This time they issued a plaint claiming 607 on a resulting trust. They said that, as she had contributed this 607 towards the extension of the building, at all events Mr. Palmer held the house on trust to repay it at some time or other to her: and that she would have an interest in the house to that extent in proportion to the amount she had contributed. In July 1971, the fresh action came on for hearing before the county court judge himself. Mrs. Hussey went into the witness box and gave her story again. She said of Mr. Palmer:... he said he would build a bedroom on for me. He asked me if I would lend him the money. I agreed to lend it to him. In cross-examination she said: They would give me a home for life, if I wanted it. The defendant, Mr. Palmer, elected to call no evidence. The judge felt that, on Mrs. Hussey s own evidence, there was a loan, and not a resulting trust. After some discussion, Mrs. Hussey s counsel sought leave to amend the claim by adding an alternative claim for money lent, The defendant opposed the amendment. So the judge did not grant it. He made a note, saying: The plaintiff s advisers decided to drop the claim for loan before the registrar and have in this action elected not to claim on a loan. So the claim remained on a resulting trust only. On April 4, 1971, the judge decided in favour of the defendant. He said in his note for this court: I thought that the plaintiff was an honest witness, and at the end of her evidence I was satisfied that I ought to find that the money had been lent by the plaintiff and that there was no case for a resulting trust... I... reserved judgment to see if I could find for the plaintiff on the case pleaded. I could not. So Mrs. Hussey went away a second time taking nothing. Now she appeals to this court. 데닝경이소개한소송의경위도아주흥미롭다. 원고가카운티법원에소장을제출했을때판사가너무바빠법원서기 (registrar) 가양측의동의를얻어증거서류를검토를한후돈을빌려준것이라할수없다고말했다는점, 이에따라원고측변호사가원고의 607 파운드는복귀신탁으로맡긴돈이니신탁이설정된주택을소유하게된피고가언젠가원고에게그돈을갚아야하며, 원고는그돈에비례한신탁적이익을갖는다고소장을변경한점, 정식재판이열렸을때할머니가돈을준경위를진술한것외에는다른증거가법정에제출되지않은점, 소송진행을지켜보던원고측변호사가빌려준돈을상환하라는예비적청구를추가하려했으나피고측이반대하여복귀신탁의유무에대해서만심리가이루어졌다는점등을소상하게밝혔다.

2009 시대와사회를초월한名判決 17 그리고 1 심법관이다음과같은노트를남겼다고말했다. 원고의증언에비추어돈을빌려 준것이라고보아야하나, 판결을미루면서까지할머니에게유리한근거를찾아보려고했지 만복귀신탁만가지고는그리할수없었다. Mr. Owen, on her behalf, rests her case on a resulting trust. He says that, despite Mrs. Hussey s own evidence, there was no loan. I agree that Mrs. Hussey did not lend the 607 to Mr. Palmer. Test it this way: suppose that, a week or two later, Mrs. Hussey had demanded from Mr. Palmer repayment of the 607, and he had refused. Could she recover it as money lent? and have the house sold up to regain it? Clearly not. The courts would undoubtedly have said - as the registrar said here - that it was a family arrangement. There was no intention that it should be repaid on demand. Again, if she had stayed on in the house, making use of the bedroom, could she have sued Mr. Palmer for money lent? Clearly not. There was no intention that it should be repaid whilst she had the benefit of the bedroom. Suppose that she had stayed there until she died, could her executors have sued Mr. Palmer for money lent? Clearly not. There was no intention that it should be repaid after her death. 원고측인오웬변호사가사위에게돈을빌려준것인지를놓고갈팡질팡한것에대해데닝경도원고가피고에게돈을빌려주려는의도가아니었음을분명히했다. 원고가돈을빌려준것이라면자기가살고있는집을팔아서라도갚으라고했겠느냐, 원고가죽은후에도피고더러갚으라고할수있겠느냐, 그렇지않다고말했다. If there was no loan, was there a resulting trust? and, if so, what were the terms of the trust? Although the plaintiff alleged that there was a resulting trust, I should have thought that the trust in this case, if there was one, was more in the nature of a constructive trust: but this is more a matter of words than anything else. The two run together. By whatever name it is described, it is a trust imposed by law whenever justice and good conscience require it. It is a liberal process, founded upon large principles of equity, to be applied in cases where the legal owner cannot conscientiously keep the property for himself alone, but ought to allow another to have the property or the benefit of it or a share in it. The trust may arise at the outset when the property is acquired, or later on, as the circumstances may require. It is an equitable remedy by which the court can enable an aggrieved party to obtain restitution. It is comparable to the legal remedy of money had and received which, as Lord Mansfield said, is very beneficial and therefore, much encouraged [Moses v. MacFarlan (1760) 2 Burr. 1005, 1012]. Thus we have repeatedly held that, when one person contributes towards the purchase price of a house, the owner holds it on a constructive trust for him, proportionate to his contribution, even though there is no agreement between them, and no declaration of trust to be found, and no evidence of any intention to create a trust. Instances are numerous where a wife has contributed money to

18 KHU 글로벌기업법무리뷰제 2 권제 1 호 the initial purchase of a house or property; or later on to the payment of mortgage instalments; or has helped in a business: see Falconer v. Falconer [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1333; Heseltine v. Heseltine [1971] 1 W.L.R. 342 and In re Cummins, decd. [1972] Ch. 62. Similarly, when a mistress has contributed money, or money s worth, to the building of a house: Cooke v. Head [1972] 1 W.L.R. 518. Very recently we held that a purchaser, who bought a cottage subject to the rights of an occupier, held it on trust for her benefit: Binions v. Evans [1972] Ch. 359. In all those cases it would have been quite inequitable for the legal owner to take the property for himself and exclude the other from it. So the law imputed or imposed a trust for his or her benefit. 원 피고간의거래의법적성격을복귀신탁이라고한다면그조건은무엇인가? 데닝경은이러한경우에는신탁의존재를의제할수있다고하면서 정의와선한양심 이요구할때에는법에의하여부과되는신탁이있다고말했다. 형평법 (equity) 의원칙상법적소유자가양심상혼자서만재산을가질수없고다른사람도재산상의이익을얻거나공유하게하는경우를예로들었다. 이러한경우에는처음재산을취득하였을때또는상황에따라서는나중에신탁이성립한다고말했다. 피해당사자가보상을받을수있게법원이취할수있는형평법상의구제수단 (equitable remedy) 이라는것이다. 이를테면집을사는데누가돈을보탰다면신탁에관한합의는없었더라도소유자는그를위하여그의기여금에상응하는신탁을받은것으로보아야한다 ( 의제신탁 ) 고했다. 모기지할부금이나사업자금의경우에도이와비슷한선례가많이있는데, 모두법적소유자혼자서만재산을취득하는것이형평에맞지않을때법이다른기여자를위하여부과하는신탁이라고설명했다. The present case is well within the principles of those cases. Just as a person, who pays part of the purchase price, acquires an equitable interest in the house, so also he does when he pays for an extension to be added to it. Mr. Owen has done a lot of research and has found a case in 1858 to that very effect. It is Unity Joint Stock Mutual Banking Association v. King (1858) 25 Beav. 72. A father had land on which he built a granary. His two sons built two other granaries on it at a cost of 1,200. Sir John Romilly M.R. held that the two sons had a lien or charge on the property as against the father, and any person claiming through him. The father had never promised to pay the sons 1,200. He was not indebted to them in that sum. He had never engaged or promised to make over the land to them or to give them a charge on it. Yet they had a lien or charge on the land. That case was approved by the Privy Council in Chalmers v. Pardoe [1963] 1 W.L.R. 677, 681-682, where it was said to be based on the general equitable principle that... it would be against conscience for the owner to take the land without repaying the sums expended on the buildings. To this I would add Inwards v. Baker [1965] 2 Q.B. 29, when a son built a bungalow on his father s land in the expectation that he would be allowed to stay there as his home, though there was no promise to that effect. After the father s death, his trustees sought to turn the son out. It was held that he had an equitable interest which was good against the

2009 시대와사회를초월한名判決 19 trustees. In those cases it was emphasised that the court must look at the circumstances of each case to decide in what way the equity can be satisfied. In some by an equitable lien. In others by a constructive trust. But in either case it is because justice and good conscience so require. 데닝경은본건사안이위에소개한사례와부합한다고말하고, 어느사람이집을사거나주택을증축할때돈을댔다면그집에형평법상의이익을갖는다고강조했다. 원고측변호사가본건에부합하는 1백여년전의선례를원용한것외에도, 건물에상당한비용을지출한사람을배제한채소유자만이부동산을소유한다고하는것은양심에반하는것이며이는일반형평법상의원칙에속한다고한몇가지판례를인용했다. 아버지의땅에방갈로를지은아들은설령아버지가방갈로를써도좋다는말을한적이없어도형평법상의유치권 (equitable lien) 내지의제신탁에의하여당연히방갈로를사용할수있으며, 아버지의사후에도그아들을몰아낼수없다고한판결을인용했다. In the present case Mrs. Hussey paid 607 to a builder for the erection of this extension. It may well be, as the defendant says, that there was no contract to repay it at all. It was not a loan to the son-in-law. She could not sue him for repayment. He could not have turned her out. If she had stayed there until she died, the extension would undoubtedly have belonged beneficially to the son-in-law. If, during her lifetime, he had sold the house, together with the extension, she would be entitled to be repaid the 607 out of the proceeds. He admits this himself. But he has not sold the house. She has left, and the son-in-law has the extension for his own benefit and could sell the whole if he so desired. It seems to me to be entirely against conscience that he should retain the whole house and not allow Mrs. Hussey any interest in it, or any charge upon it. The court should, and will, impose or impute a trust by which Mr. Palmer is to hold the property on terms under which, in the circumstances that have happened, she has an interest in the property proportionate to the 607 which she put into it. She is quite content if he repays her the 607. If he does not repay the 607, she can apply for an order for sale, so that the sum can be paid to her. But the simplest way for him would be to raise the 607 on mortgage and pay it to her. But, on the legal point raised, I have no doubt there was a resulting trust, or, more accurately, a constructive trust, for her, and I would so declare. I would allow the appeal, accordingly. 본건에서원고는건축업자에게 607 파운드를직접지급했고, 피고가주장한것처럼어떻게상환할것인지에대한언급은없었다. 즉사위에게돈을빌려준것은아니므로사위에게돈을갚으라고소송을벌일수도없다. 만일원고가죽을때까지그집에살았으면증축한방은사위의소유가되었을것이다. 그러나원고의생전에그집을팔았다면원고는매각대금에서 607 파운드를돌려받을수있을것이다. 원고는제발로그집을나갔고피고는그집을팔지않았다. 그렇다고피고가그집을독차지하고원고는한푼도건질수없다는것은법관으로서의양

20 KHU 글로벌기업법무리뷰제 2 권제 1 호 심에반한다. 본법원은상황에따라원고가지급한금액에상응하는이익을갖는조건으로피고가그집에대하여신탁을받은것으로본다. 피고가 607 파운드를반환하면원고는만족하겠지만, 피고가이돈을갚지않으면원고는그집의매각을청구하여돈을받아낼수있다. 가장간단한방법은피고가그집을담보로대출을받아원고에게갚는일이다. 데닝경은원 피고간에복귀신탁, 좀더엄밀히말해서의제신탁이있었다는데의심이없으므로원고의항소를받아들인다며원고승소판결을내렸다. Issue 2 이사건은복귀신탁의요건을충족하였는지가문제가되고있으므로영국법의복귀신탁 (resulting trust) 과의제신탁에대하여좀더자세히알아볼필요가있다. 신탁이란일정한목적을위하여재산을관리 처분하도록하고타인 ( 수탁자 ) 에게재산을이전하는것을말한다. 13세기경영국의교회를위한유스 (use) 제도에서유래하였으며시대의흐름과함께형평법 (equity) 으로발전하였다. 이러한연혁에비추어신탁의이익을받기로한사람이형평법상도저히신탁의이익을향수할만한입장이못된다면신탁재산 (trust property) 이위탁자에게복귀하는것으로보자는것인데이를復歸신탁또는結果的신탁이라고한다. 사전적인의미에서복귀신탁이란 8) A가 B에게또는 A의지시로 C로부터 B에게재산의권원 (legal title) 이이전되지만당사자의행위, 당사자간의관계또는주변정황으로부터 A에게그재산으로부터발생하는이익을 B에게누리게할의사가없는것으로추정되는경우에는 A, A 의상속인또는 A의상속재산을수익자로하여성립이추정되는신탁을말한다. 재산의실질적이익이 A에게다시돌아가기때문에그러한이름이붙었다. 명시신탁 (express trust) 이전부또는일부무효가된경우, 신탁종료시에신탁재산의나머지가있는경우, 일정자산의구입대금을지불한자의지시로매도인이당해자산을다른사람에게이전하는경우에그성립이인정된다. 어디까지나당사자의추정의사에기하여신탁의성립이인정되는점에서의제신탁과구별된다. 그렇다면데닝경이지적한, 당사자의의사를추정할수없으니복귀신탁이라고하기에는불충분하지만 정의와선한양심 에의하여수탁자에게신탁이설정되었다고보아야하는의제신탁 (constructive trust) 이란무엇인가. 데닝경은원심에서처럼복귀신탁에관한기존판례이론에얽매여못된사위가불쌍한할머니의재산을가로채는결과를묵과한다는것은그의양심에반한다고말했다. 그리고신탁설정의의사표시가존재하지않음에도불구하고일정한법의목적을실현하기위해서는신탁이설정되었다고볼수있는 [ 擬制 ] 경우가있음을선례를들어가며설명했다. 예컨대방갈로사례도그렇지만, 토지의매매로권리의이전은이루어졌지만대금이완제되지않았다면매수인을수탁자, 매도인을수익자, 당해토지를신탁재산으 8) 英美法辭典, 730 면.

2009 시대와사회를초월한名判決 21 로하는신탁이성립되었다고의제함으로써각종법률문제의타당한해결을도모할수있다는것이다. 9) 의제신탁은당초당사자간에신탁설정의의사가없었으나일정한법의목적을달성하기위해신탁관계가성립되었다고보는것이다. 복귀신탁에서당사자의행위, 관계또는주변정황으로부터신탁의이익을위탁자에게돌린것처럼처음부터당사자의행위, 관계또는주변정황에비추어신탁설정의의사가있었다고볼수있는경우도있지않는것이다. 이것은영미법에서묵시신탁 (implied trust) 이라고부른다. 묵시신탁은당사자가적극적또는직접적으로신탁설정의의사를표시하지는않았지만당사자의행위, 관계또는주변정황으로부터신탁설정의의사가추정되어그추정의사에기하여설정이인정되는신탁을가리키는경우가많다. 이경우는어느법의목적을실현하기위하여신탁설정의의사에관계없이신탁설정이의제되는의제신탁과구별된다. 미국에서는법의작용 (implication of law) 에의하여성립이인정되는신탁의의미로많이이용되고있다. 이경우에는의제신탁뿐만아니라당사자의의사를법이추정한다고하는점에역점을두어복귀신탁을포함한용어로사용된다. 10) Comment 최근우리나라에서도펀드를이용한간접투자가성행하면서신탁제도에대한관심이고조되고있다. 11) 우리에게친숙하지않은영미법제도이기는하지만신탁제도가본래영국법에서도형평법에서발달하였다는점을유의할필요가있다. 신탁제도는내용상의유연성 (flexibility in design) 이특색이자강점으로, 미국에서는통일신탁법 (Uniform Trust Code) 이제정되어있음에도당사자의의사와신탁운용실무가보다중요시되고법조문은예비적으로적용되는임의규정 (default rule) 인경우가많다. 12) 이러한견지에서우리나라에도이미의제신탁에관한대법원판례가나와있음은주목을요한다. 13) 그사안은우리가흔히볼수있는무기명식이권부보증사채를둘러싸고보증보험회 9) 미국에서는타인을기망하여얻은금전을운용하여큰이익을얻은경우편취자를수탁자, 편취당한자를수익자, 편취한금전또는그의가치변형물을신탁재산으로하여불법한수단으로얻은이익에원천을둔이익전부를토해내게하는수단으로이법리를적극활용한다. 상게서. 190 면 ; 심지어는회사경영진이회사의기회를이용하여사익을추구하였을때그의사업자체를회사에귀속할것을명하는근거로서원용되기도한다. 임재연, 미국회사법, 수정판 (2001.8); 신탁재산이부동산인경우에는사기방지법 (Statute of Frauds) 에따라법적강제력 (enforceability) 을인정받으려면계약을서면으로작성해야하는데서면에의하지않은부동산신탁설정의경우수익자를위한의제신탁을인정한판례도있다. 大塚正民 / 樋口範雄편저, 명순구 / 오영걸역, 현대미국신탁법, 민들레총서제 2 권, 세창출판사, 119 면주 ) 19 에서재인용. 10) 英美法辭典, 428 면. 11) 간접투자의경우투자자, 판매회사, 자산운용회사및수탁회사가관여하게되는데, 투자자는자산운용회사에투자금을신탁하고, 자산운용회사는수탁회사에고객의투자금을신탁한다는 이중신탁 의관계로보고있다. 한편법무부에서는 1961 년에제정된신탁법을전면개편하기로하고 2009 년 1 월학계, 법조계, 실무계전문가들로특별분과위원회 ( 위원장김상용연세대교수 ) 를구성하여신탁의유연성을최대한높이고외국의입법동향을우리현실에맞게수용한신탁법개정안을마련하였다. 12) 명순구 / 오영걸역, 전게서, 16 면. 13) 대법원 2002.7.26. 선고 2000 다 17070 판결. 이를평석한논문으로는임채웅, 묵시신탁과의제신탁의연구,

22 KHU 글로벌기업법무리뷰제 2 권제 1 호 사 ( 원고 ) 와사채원리금지급기금을별단예금으로보관하고있던시중은행 ( 피고 ) 간에벌어진소송이다. 원고는발행회사의부도로보증채무를이행한후사채원리금지급기금과대출원리금채권액을상계한피고에대하여동상계를부인하면서사채원금의지급을청구하였다. 대법원은 보증사채의모집또는매출에관한공시제도의취지와사채원리금지급대행사무를금융기관의업무로하는취지및사채원리금지급대행계약의내용등을종합하여보면, 사채원리금지급대행계약은발행회사가발행한사채의사채권자에게그원리금을지급하기위하여발행회사가사채원리금지급자금을은행에게인도하고은행은이를인도받아보관, 관리하면서사채권자에게그사채원리금을지급하는것을목적으로하는것으로서신탁계약으로서의성질을가지고, 그렇다면발행회사가은행에게인도하는사채원리금지급자금은신탁재산에해당하고수익자인사채권자의이익향수 ( 享受 ) 의의사는추정되는것이므로, 은행은발행회사로부터인도받은사채원리금지급자금을그신탁의본지에따라관리할의무가있고, 은행이사채권자의이익과관계없이발행회사의청구만에의하여위사채원리금을반환하거나그지급자금의반환채권을수동채권으로하여자신의발행회사에대한채권과상계하는것은신탁의법리상허용되지아니한다 고판시하였다. 14) 이사건의쟁점은 당사자가신탁관계임을명시적으로밝히지않았음에도신탁으로인정할수있는가? 였다. 대법원판결을평석한서울중앙지방법원의임채웅부장판사는다수의일본판례를소개한후일본법원은구체적타당성을기할수있다면비교적자유롭게법률관계의성질을인정하고있다는인상을받게된다고말했다. 15) 임부장판사는우리나라에서특수한경우에묵시신탁과같은신탁의성립여부가문제된경우는거의없었다면서구체적인계약해석의문제로묵시신탁을인정하는일 16) 은언제든지일어날수있으므로굳이신탁의법리로이해하여야할일은아니라고덧붙였다. 임채웅부장판사가지적한것처럼 17) 우리나라대법원은구체적타당성등에서필요하다는판단만서면, 18) [ 신탁설정의의사가 ] 명시되지않은경우에도신탁을인정하는것을피하려하 저스티스, 통권제 105 호, 한국법학원, 277~301 면이있다. 14) 대법원 2002.7.26. 선고 2000 다 17070 판결 사채원금 [ 법원공보 2002.9.15.(162),2025]. 15) 일본에서는신탁법개정전인 2002 년에의제적인신탁관계를인정한최고재판소판결이나왔다. 판결요지는公共공사의건설회사인청부인이파산한경우에발주자와청부인사이에는발주자를위탁자, 청부인을수탁자, 건축전불금을신탁재산으로하여이를당해공사의필요경비의지급에충당함을목적으로하는신탁계약이성립하였다고해석하는것이상당하다는내용이었다. 임채웅, 전게논문, 283, 295 면. 16) 묵시적신탁계약이라할수있으려면 1 신탁설정의사는분명히있어야하고, 2 보통은신탁이라는용어를사용하지않아야하고, 3 그러함에도신탁특유의징표 - 분별관리의무, 수탁자로서의지위에관한사항, 수익자지정등 - 가있어야한다. 그러나계약목적물이등기나등록을요하는재산권일경우실제에있어서는묵시신탁을인정할여지가거의없을것이다. 주로금융분야에서어느정도틀이잡혀업계에서정형적으로이루어지고있는법률관계에는적용이있을것으로예상된다. 상게논문, 290 면각주 29). 17) 상게논문, 287 면. 18) 임채웅판사는본건대법원판례를평석하면서대상판결이펴고있는묵시적인신탁관계를인정하는논리구조나피고은행뿐만아니라사채발행회사의일반채권자들도불이익을입게되는결론모두에찬성하지않는다고말했다. 피고은행으로서는의도하지않은사정으로수탁자가되어이자도붙지않는별단예금으로보관하고있을뿐인데 [ 이사건이후에별도의수수료를징구하는것을떠나서 ] 당초계약당시의피고의의사와는

2009 시대와사회를초월한名判決 23 지않을것같은인상을준다. 본고에서보증사채의사채권자와, 별도의담보를챙기지않은일반채권자중에서누구의보호를우선해야하는지논할필요는없다. 그러나기존법리에얽매어스스로탄식하는판결문을쓰느니적극적으로사회정의를실현하고선한양심을지키는것이야말로법관의책무라고아니할수없다. 데닝경은이사건을심리함에있어서허시부인이사위에게건축자금을빌려준것도아니고, 방을증축하도록돈을맡길때신탁의사가있었던것도아니므로기존법리에따라복귀신탁으로의율하기도어렵다고생각했을것이다. 그렇다고불효한사위가홀로사는장모의재산을가로채고이익을얻는것은도저히묵과할수없었다. 그렇기에당사자의신탁의사를확인할수없음에도정의와선한양심에입각하여신탁관계가있었다고보고그돈을반환하라고한것이다. 그리고친절하게도사위에게는집을매각할것없이그집에모기지를설정하고대출을받아서갚으라고일렀다. 데닝경이기존법리를뛰어넘어 새로운모델 (new model) 의의제신탁 이라는물꼬를틈으로써 19) 이판결을선례삼아그동안한쪽당사자에게는억울하게처리될수밖에없었던법률문제들이타당한해결방법을찾을수있게된것이다. IV. 우리나라의명판결을기다리며 데닝경은앞서소개한커크시케이스에서처럼법과재판의한계를고백하거나한탄하지않았다. 그대신적극적으로법의목적을구현하는데노력하여만인의감동을자아내는명판결을내린점에서더욱위대해보인다. 데닝경은법정에서기존판례나법리에얽매이지않고구체적타당성이있는판결을내렸기에 20) 법정의엔터테이너 21) 라는별칭을얻기도했다. 분명히어긋나는결과라는것이다. 상게논문, 301 면, 295 면. 19) 데닝경의의제신탁판결은신탁의 새로운모델 이라고일컬어졌으나, 학계에서는신탁관계에대한너무유연하고자의적인절차 (flexible discretionary procedure) 에매우비판적이었다. 영미법국가중에서는캐나다와미국의법원들이의제신탁의진보적이고구제적인 (liberal remedial) 특성을높이평가하였다. Michael Byrne, Constructive Trusts: Too Much Discretion or Not Enough, Galway Student Law Review, Vol. 3, 2007, Washington & Lee Law School (Ireland), Vol. 3(2007), p. 195. 20) 이와같이건전한상식과정의관념에입각한유연한법리적용의사례는국제거래법상의명판결로알려진유제니아호사건, 페마른호사건에서도엿볼수있다. 박훤일, 국제거래법 - 케이스와서식, 한국경영법무연구소 (1996), 17~19 면, 25~26 면. 전자의경우 1956 년러시아국영무역회사가용선한유제니아호가수에즈전쟁의발발로운하속에갇혔을때용선자는전쟁이라는불가항력 (force majeure) 적사유를주장했다. 데닝경은이는용선자가스스로초래한위험이었고, 당시의여러가지상황에비추어수에즈운하가아니라아프리카희망봉으로우회하는코스를택하는것이합리적이었다는점에서용선자가용선료를지불해야한다는판결을내렸다 (Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp. v. V/O Sovfracht, [1964] 1 All E.R. 161). 후자의사건에서는페마른호에실은화물이오염되어화주가선주에게손해배상을청구하였을때선하증권상으로는재판관할이소련법원으로되어있었다. 데닝경은다툼의해결이영국에보다밀접하게관련되어있으므로 (closely connected) 소송이제기된영국법원은관할법원의합의에구속받지않는다고판결했다 (The Fehmarn, [1958] A All E.R. 333). 21) 이말은필자가미국 SMU 로스쿨에서수학할때국제거래법 (International Business Transactions) 시간에데닝경의유제니아호사건을설명하던피터윈십교수로부터직접전해들었다.

24 KHU 글로벌기업법무리뷰제 2 권제 1 호 우리법제에서는약인을인정하지아니하므로커크시케이스는애당초문제되지않는다. 그러나허시부인의사건은시사하는바가적지않다. 만일이사건이우리나라의법정에서다루어졌다면어떻게되었을까. 우리나라의법관들도불효한사위를응징하고연금으로생활하는할머니를동정한나머지원고승소판결을내릴것임에틀림없다. 우선법적으로는일반원칙인신의칙 ( 민법제2조 1항 ) 또는부당이득반환 ( 민법제741조 ) 의법리에의거하여구체적으로타당한결론을모색할것으로생각된다. 사회정책적으로도자녀들에게재산을빼앗기다시피넘겨주고아무런생계대책없이방치되는노인들의문제가심각해지고있기에정부차원에서도특단의대책을고려해야할것이다. 최근들어해외거주하는자녀가부모를해외로모신다는것을기화로재산을전부물려받은후노부모를내팽개치는사례도늘고있다. 22) 싱가포르에서는부모를부양하지않는자식을형사처벌하는법률을시행중이라고하는데, 23) 우리나라에서도입법이나법원의판결을통하여의제신탁과같은법리를보다정교하게다듬어재산만물려받고부양을외면하는자식을둔부모들의노후안전을보장할필요가있다고생각된다. 신탁의불모지와다름없는우리나라에서도, 복잡미묘한가정사라든가상호신뢰를주고받는동반자관계에있어서정의와양심에반하는결과를피하기위해서는, 24) 데닝경과같은탁월한법조인과의제신탁과같은법리를적극적으로수용하고선도하는학계의협조가필요함은두말할나위도없을것이다. 22) 2008 년 4 월캐나다위니펙에서 70 대의한국인노부부가한인교회에기거하며연명하고있는사실이 TV 방송에나온적이있었다. 사연인즉먼저캐나다로이민간딸내외가잘모시겠다는말에노부부가전재산을정리하여딸에게 8 천불을송금하고캐나다로갔는데딸네식구가종적을감추고말았다는것이다. 같은지역에사는둘째딸도언니에게만재산을물려준노부부를원망하며문전박대하였다고한다. SBS 그것이알고싶다 동방예의지국의해외고려장, 2008.4.12. 23) Strait Times of Singapore, India passes law to punish unfilial children, December 8, 2007. 24) 영국법원이의제신탁이있는것으로보는사례는다음과같다. 재산법상소유자가아닌가족이불리한처우를받는경우 (cohabitation of the family home), 상호유언을작성한부부중의생존자가어느범위까지이익을누릴수있는지문제가된경우 (creation of mutual wills), 영국유언법 (Wills Act 1837) 상의형식적요건을갖추지못한경우 (secret trusts), 사람을살해한자가피해자의재산으로부터이익을얻는경우등이다. Sarah Wilson, Introduction to resulting and constructive trusts, Chap.7 of Todd and Wilson s Textbook on Trusts (8th edit.), Oxford Univ. Press, p.162.