Publications

Detailed Information

수탁자의 이득토출책임에 관한 연구 : Disgorgement of Profits in Korean Trust Act: Lessons from Anglo-American Jurisprudence and further development
영미법상 논의 및 그 시사점을 중심으로

Cited 0 time in Web of Science Cited 0 time in Scopus
Authors

송지민

Advisor
노혁준
Issue Date
2021-02
Publisher
서울대학교 대학원
Keywords
이득토출책임원상회복책임신인관계신인의무충실의무이익충돌금지 원칙이익향수금지 원칙의제신탁Disgorgement of ProfitsAccount of ProfitsFiduciary DutyA Duty of LoyaltyNoConflict RuleNo-Profit RuleConstructive Trust
Description
학위논문 (박사) -- 서울대학교 대학원 : 법과대학 법학과, 2021. 2. 노혁준.
Abstract
Article 43(1) of the Korean Trust Act, enacted in 2012, states: Where a trustee has violated his duties incurring any loss to the trust property, the settlor, beneficiary, or other trustees where a number of trustees exist, may request the relevant trustee to restore, reinstate the trust property: Provided, that where it is impossible or substantially impracticable to reinstate the trust property, or excessive expenses are incurred in such reinstatement, or where any special ground exists making reinstatement inappropriate, a claim for damages may be raised.Furthermore, article 43(3) of the Korean Trust Act states that where a trustee is in breach of a duty of loyalty stipulated in Articles 33 through 37, he should disgorge all the profits acquired by himself or a third party to the trust property, even if no loss has incurred to the trust property.
The disgorgement remedy set out in Article 43(3) provides exceptional relief, preventing the trustee from realizing any gains resulting from a breach of the trustees fiduciary duty. Yet, this powerful gain-based remedy has not been applied by courts in South Korea. Thus, it is difficult to understand a clear rule for determining disgorgement of profits case.
Before the enactment of article 43(3), there have been debates by legal scholars whether any legal basis already existed for disgorgement of profits in South Korea. Unjust enrichment and management of anothers affairs(negotiorum gestio) were traditional remedies available to an injured party, however the legal basis for disgorgement of profits was tenuous. Thus, the legislature found it necessary to specially enact Article 43(3) to be able to impose this remedy. However, no case law has been developed so far and Article 43(3) is often overlooked due to its obscurity. The purpose of this dissertation is to clarify the nature and function of a trustees fiduciary duty and the disgorgement of profits under Article 43(3) by analyzing the fiduciary duty of a trustee and the remedies available for breach of a trustees fiduciary duty in Anglo-American jurisprudence.
This dissertation will first examine the basic principles of disgorgement of profits in a breach of trustees fiduciary duty in Anglo-American jurisprudence. In Anglo-American jurisprudence, the purpose of disgorgement of profits is to strip profits if they are gained in a breach of fiduciary duty owed by the trustee to its beneficiaries. The fiduciary duty of the trustee requires the fiduciary to exercise the highest duty of trust and confidence between the fiduciary and its beneficiaries. The fiduciary must exercise its powers and discretion carefully given the vulnerable and dependent nature of any beneficiarys relationship to its trustee. Given the special status of this relationship, a trustee owes the highest fiduciary duty to the beneficiary, which includes the no-conflict rule and the no-profit rule.
The vitally important duty of loyalty is not self-enforcing, and when a breach occurs, the remedy should be in conformity with the duty. The rationale for disgorgement of profits is to deter a breach of the duty of loyalty. Deterrence and prophylaxis are the strongest rational for disgorgement of profits. The quantification of illegally gained profits must reflect the nuances of the fiduciary relationship and the manner in which the duty was breached; the uneasy interplay between causation, remoteness and allowances must be considered. In ordering a disgorgement of profits, a court should factor in the fiduciarys skill and effort in determining the amount of the profits that should be disgorged. Disgorgement of profits is a harsh remedy, and its effectiveness as a deterrent depends on its proportionality to the wrongs.
This paper will also address the liability of third parties to its beneficiaries in Anglo-American jurisprudence. The liability of third parties is based upon the concepts of knowing receipt and knowing assistance. When a third party receives a trust asset which has been disposed of by the trustee in breach of the trustees duty, and the third party has knowledge of the breach of duty, then the third party can be held liable to its beneficiaries for the value of the asset. Moreover, if the third party knowingly assists the trustee in a dishonest and fraudulent manner, the third party can be held independently liable to its beneficiaries for the third partys misconduct. Under the Korean Trust Act, when the trustee has engaged in a legal act in violation of the purpose of trust, the beneficiary is granted the right to seek recission. However, the remedy of recission is only available when the third party (and a subsequent purchaser) knows about the trustees breach of fiduciary duty at the time when the breach occurs, or the third party is unaware of the breach due to gross negligence of the third party.
Unlike Anglo-American jurisprudence, knowing assistance is not a basis for imposing liability on a third party in South Korea. However, this dissertation proposes that South Korea should adopt the basis for liability to include knowing assistance, to ensure that the third party does not profit from his wrongdoing. Most circumstances involving knowing assistance pertain to professionals, such as financial institutions, accountants, and legal professionals alleged to have fostered the fiduciarys misconduct.
Finally, this paper examines whether it is plausible to apply the disgorgement of profits remedy to a corporations board of directors. In Anglo-American jurisprudence, a director of a corporation is categorically treated as a status-based fiduciary who owes a fiduciary duty to the corporation. If unauthorized profits are made by a director in breach of his fiduciary duty to the corporation, the director should be required to disgorge the profits just as a disloyal trustee is required to disgorge profits under the Trust Act in South Korea.
Under the Korean Commercial Code, remedies exist that are functionally similar to the disgorgement of profits, yet these remedies are fragmented. For instance, directors are prohibited from engaging in a transaction which competes with their corporations interests without the consent of the board of directors. If a director violates his duty not to compete in the absence of the boards consent, the director may be held liable for monetary damages sustained by the corporation. Additionally, intervention rights are granted to a corporation under the Korean Commercial Code. The corporation may intervene and substitute itself for the director in the third-party transaction. Furthermore, a director may not usurp certain business opportunities available to the corporation without approval by the board of directors. If a director usurps the corporations business opportunity in contravention of his fiduciary duty, then the director may be held liable for damages based upon a presumption that the ill-gotten gains made by the director are the damages suffered by the corporation. Both intervention rights and the presumption that illegal profits are the corporations damages are modified forms of the remedy of disgorgement of profits. However, a breach of a general duty of loyalty under the Korean Commercial Code does not stipulate these gain-based remedies. The directors of a corporation are in charge of managing the companys business and thus, their role is similar to that of a trustee. Thus, this paper argues that the remedy of disgorgement of profits should be adopted for breach of a duty of loyalty by a director under the Korean Commercial Code.
신탁법 제43조 제1항은 수탁자의 원상회복 책임을 규정하여 수탁자가 의무를 위반하여 신탁재산에 손해가 생긴 경우에 의무를 위반한 수탁자에게 신탁재산의 원상회복을 청구할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 이에 덧붙여 제43조 제3항은 수탁자가 충실의무를 위반한 경우에는 신탁재산에 손해가 생기지 아니하였더라도 수탁자는 그로 인하여 수탁자나 제3자가 얻은 이득 전부를 신탁재산에 반환해야 한다고 규정하고 있다. 제43조 제3항은 2012년 신탁법 전면개정 시 영미법의 신인의무자의 이득토출책임을 도입하려고 신설한 규정이다. 본 논문은 신탁법 제43조에 대한 수탁자의 원상회복책임 및 이득토출책임의 성격을 파악하고 반환 범위를 획정하는 법리를 검토하였다.

신인의무는 특정 관계에서 형성된 신뢰와 신임을 보호하는 법적 장치로 파악할 수 있다. 신인관계에 있는 양 당사자사이에는 신뢰와 신임이 형성이 된다. 이 단계에서 신인의무자인 일방 당사자에게 폭넓은 재량을 부여하기에 본인은 신인의무자의 권한과 재량에 따라 좌지우지되는 취약성, 의존성을 띄고 정보 불균형의 상황에 놓여 있게 된다. 따라서 일반적인 계약관계와 달리 신인관계에 있는 본인은 일정 장치에 의해 보호를 받아야 한다. 신인의무자가 자신의 이익을 신인의무보다 우선시하거나 신인의무자의 지위 등을 말미암아 이익을 취득하는 것을 금지하는 이익충돌금지 원칙과 이익향수금지 원칙은 본인을 보호하기 위한 장치의 가장 기본일 것이다. 신인의무를 부여하는 것과 같은 취지에서 신인의무 위반 책임의 추궁 방법도 신인의무자의 의무 위반의 억지와 예방 목적을 달성하는 방향으로 이루어져야 한다. 이러한 측면에서 신탁법 제43조 제3항의 이득토출책임의 도입은 바람직하다. 신인의무자의 충실의무 위반을 적발하는 경우에 신인의무자가 의무 위반을 통해 취득한 이익을 전부 토출하도록 하는 구제수단은 분명 신인의무자의 의무 위반을 억지 및 예방하는 역할을 할 수 있을 것이라고 기대한다. 다만 아직 우리 신탁법에서 이득토출책임을 구체적으로 적용한 판례가 일천하기 때문에 이를 적용하는 방안에 대한 논의가 필요하다. 본 논문에서는 향후 우리 신탁법에서 이득토출책임을 어떻게 적용할 것인지에 대한 길잡이를 마련하기 위해 영미법의 이론과 판례를 자세히 검토하였다. 영미법에서는 신인의무 위반의 책임의 엄격성과 이로 인한 가혹한 책임 사이에서 균형을 이루기 위해 이득토출책임의 반환범위를 결정할 때에 인과관계 기준, 격원성 기준 및 공제 등의 방식을 활용하여 신인의무 위반의 억지 목적과 공평의 목적을 동시에 달성하고자 한다.

뿐만 아니라 영미법에서는 신인의무자의 책임 외 제3수령자와 제3조력자가 요건을 만족하면 제3자에게도 이득토출책임을 부과한다. 반면 우리 신탁법은 제3자가 직접 이득을 취득한 경우에도 수탁자에게 이득토출책임을 부과하는 방식을 취하고 제3조력자 책임에 대한 논의는 아직 이루어지지 않고 있다. 제3수령자의 경우, 수탁자에게 책임을 적용하는 동시에 신탁법 제75조 수익자 취소권을 활용하도록 하고 있다. 논문에서는 충실의무 위반시 제43조에 따른 수탁자의 책임과 제75조 수익자 취소권의 관계에 대하여 고찰해보았다. 또한 영미법의 제3자 책임에 대한 논의를 통하여 우리 신탁법에서도 제3자 책임을 도입할 필요가 있는지 살펴보았다.

마지막으로 본 논문은 수탁자 뿐만 아니라 전형적인 신인관계에 해당하는 회사의 이사의 충실의무 위반에 대한 이득토출책임의 도입 필요성을 검토하였다. 영미법상 회사의 이사는 대표적인 신인의무자에 해당하고 이사의 충실의무 위반에도 이득토출책임을 적용한다. 우리 회사법에서는 일반적인 충실의무 규정 외에도 자기거래금지, 경업금지 및 회사기회 유용금지 등 충실의무의 세부규정을 두고 있다. 세부규정 위반시에는 개입권과 이익의 손해추정규정을 활용하는 구제수단을 적용하지만 충실의무 위반에는 손해배상책임만을 적용하고 있을 뿐 별도의 구제수단을 규정하고 있지 않다. 따라서 본 논문에서 이사의 엄격한 충실의무 이행을 촉구하기 위하여 이사의 충실의무 위반에 대하여 이득토출책임을 도입할 것을 제안한다.
Language
kor
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/10371/176547

https://dcollection.snu.ac.kr/common/orgView/000000165558
Files in This Item:
Appears in Collections:

Altmetrics

Item View & Download Count

  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Share