선하증권의 준거법에 관한 몇가지 문제점-국제해상물건운송계약법의 서론적 고찰-

석광현 한국무역상무학회 1999 貿易商務硏究 Vol.12 No.-

한국국제사법학회 30년의 회고와 과제: 국제재판관할법의 정립을 넘어 준거법규정의 개정을 향하여

석광현 한국국제사법학회 2023 國際私法硏究 Vol.29 No.1

The revised Private International Law Act of Korea (“PIL Act”) entered into force on 5 July 2022 pursuant to the Act on the Amendment of the entire Private International Law Act, which introduced new detailed international jurisdiction rules to the prior Private International Law Act (“Prior PIL Act”) that entered into force in July 2001. Therefore, it is now necessary to prepare amendments to supplement the choice of law rules of the Prior PIL Act. It is of great significance to check the current status, review the legislative proposals on the existing choice of law rules which were made until recently, and find the starting points for their revision, as it has been more than 20 years since the choice of law rules of the Prior PIL Act were implemented. The revision of the choice of law rules should address the shortcomings of the 2001 amendments to the Prior PIL Act, rectify problems that have emerged over the past 20 years of operation, and address the increasing number of foreign residents, the widespread use of the internet and the proliferation of online service businesses, and the digital transformation driven by artificial intelligence (AI), platforms and virtual assets. In this regard, the guidelines for the revision of the choice of law rules of the PIL Act are as follows: First, provisions whose problems have been identified by existing judicial decisions and writings shall be amended; Second, those provisions for which there are divided theories of interpretation, but no court precedent, and no problem has yet been materialised shall be left to interpretation; Third, if necessary, the revision of the PIL Act shall be considered where court precedents have misunderstood the purpose of the PIL Act; Fourth, in those areas that have adhered to the nationality principle (in particular, the law of family and succession), it shall be considered whether the nationality principle should be retained in light of developments over the past two decades; and Fifth, as the 2022 amendments introduced detailed international jurisdiction rules into the PIL Act, it shall be considered whether the parallelism or interaction between international jurisdiction rules and choice of law rules requires revision of the choice of law rules. However, as the revision of choice of law rules is a vast undertaking, it is not possible to cover all of them here, so I will limit myself to the key issues. In this article, I discuss the provisions of the PIL Act in numerical order, first examining the current status of the PIL Act on each issue and discussing whether and how they should be revised. In my view, the key areas for reform are broadly as follows. The articles on intellectual property rights and consumer contracts and the articles limiting punitive damages and grossly excessive damages need to be revised. Policy decisions are necessary on whether to revise the law applicable to legal persons and associations, the relaxation of the flag of ship principle in maritime matters and giving habitual residence precedence over nationality as connecting factor for general effect of marriage, the law applicable to family name of natural person and the law applicable to trusts. Due to lack of my research, at present I am unable to suggest any amendments to the objective governing law of contracts for carriage. Unlike the last two revisions, the future revisions to the choice of law rules of the PIL Act will be “minor revisions” so that articles of the PIL Act will not need to be totally renumbered as new articles. If Korea is to become a hub for international dispute resolution, whether in the area of maritime law or intellectual property law, as has been discussed, Korean courts need to demonstrate to the outside world that they are capable of handling international cases. In order to do so, we must ensure that the choice of law rules of Korea are reasonable, that Korean courts accurately apply the designated governing law (especially f...

헤이그 국제아동입양협약의 이행을 위한 ‘국제입양에 관한 법률’의 주요 내용과 문제점

석광현 한양대학교 법학연구소 2023 법학논총 Vol.40 No.3

우리나라는 국제입양에서 아동의 최선의 이익을 보호하기 위하여 헤이그국제사법회의에서 1993년 채택한 “국제입양에서 아동의 보호 및 협력에 관한 협약”(“협약”)에 2013. 5. 24. 서명하였으나 아직 비준은 하지 않았다. 과거 여러 차례 국제입양에 관한 법률안이 국회에 발의된 바 있었으나 입법에 이르지 못하였다. 마침내 2023. 7. 18. ‘국제입양에 관한 법률’(“국제입양법”)과 ‘입양특례법 전부개정법률’이 공포되어 2025. 7. 19. 국제입양법과 ‘국내입양에 관한 특별법’(“국내입양특별법”)이 시행될 예정이다. 이 글에서는 협약과 국제입양법을 중심으로 우리 국제입양법제의 변화와 넓은 의미의 국제사법적 논점을 다룬다. 협약은 국제입양에서 아동보호를 위한 최소한의 실질적 요건을 규정하고 국제적 협력 내지 공조체제를 확보하며, 그에 따라 이루어진 입양의 국제적 승인을 보장한다. 국제입양법은 첫째, 협약을 이행함으로써 국제입양에서 국가책임을 강화하는 체제로 개편하기 위하여 매우 중요한 법률이다. 둘째, 국제입양법은 협약이 적용되지 않는 입양을 규율한다. 협약의 이행은 국제가족법과 넓은 의미의 국제사법 및 국제인권법(피입양인(adoptee) 특히 아동의 인권 보호)의 문제이기 하다. 늦게나마 국제입양법이 제정된 것은 매우 다행스럽고 환영할 일이다. 그러나 국제입양법에는 아직 미흡한 점들이 있으므로 개정할 필요가 있다. 첫째, 국내로의 입양(제2장 제2절)에서 국제입양법 제22조 제1항은 출신국에서 입양이 성립하면 “우리나라에서도 (체약국인) 출신국 법에 따른 효력이 발생한다.”고 규정한다. 그러나 밑줄 친 부분은 협약 제26조에 정면으로 반하므로 개정하여야 한다. 둘째, 국내로의 입양(제2장 제2절)에서 국제입양법 제22조 제2항은 “민사소송법 제217조 제1항에 따른 요건을 갖춘 경우 우리나라에서도 (비체약국인) 출신국 법에 따른 효력이 발생한다.”고 규정하나 밑줄 친 부분은 외국판결의 승인에 관한 민사소송법 제217조의 해석론에 반한다. 늦었지만 국제입양법의 시행 전에 한국국제사법학회 차원의 검토를 거쳐 개정할 필요가 있다. 국제입양법의 시행까지 남은 기간 동안 국제입양법의 하위법령(대통령령, 보건복지부령과 대법원규칙)을 제대로 준비하여야 한다. 또한 정부는 국제입양협약의 발효에 맞추어 각종 선언을 포함하여 협약 비준을 위하여 적절한 조치를 취하여야 한다. 입양은 사회 구성원인 한 인간(피입양인)의 신분(친자관계) 변동을 초래하는 점에서 매우 중요한 법적 제도인데, 입양의 성립요건과 효과 등을 달리 규정하는 출신국과 수령국의 국가법이 적용되고, 그와 다른 층위에 있는 국제규범인 협약이 중첩적으로 적용되므로 협약이 적용되는 국제입양의 법리는 매우 까다로울 수밖에 없다. Korea signed on May 24, 2013 the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (“Convention”), adopted in 1993 at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, which aims to protect the best interests of children in international adoption, but has not yet ratified it. In the past, several bills on intercountry adoption have been proposed at the National Assembly but have not been enacted. Finally, on July 18, 2023, the Act on International Adoption (“IAA”) and the Act to Amend the Special Adoption Act were promulgated, and the IAA and the “Special Domestic Adoption Act” will come into force on July 19, 2025. This article discusses the changes in Korea’s international adoption legal system and private international law issues, focusing on the Convention and the IAA. The Convention establishes minimum substantive requirements for the protection of children in intercountry adoption, provides for international cooperation and coordination, and ensures the international recognition of adoptions made pursuant to the Convention. The IAA is an important piece of legislation, first, to implement the Convention in Korea thereby reorganizing the adoption system to strengthen state responsibility in intercountry adoption. Second, IAA also governs adoptions not covered by the Convention. The implementation of the Convention is a matter of international family law, private international law in its broad sense, and international human rights law (i.e., the protection of the human rights of adoptees, especially adopted children). While it is very fortunate and welcome that the IAA has finally been enacted, albeit belatedly, there are still gaps as follows in the IAA that need to be addressed: First, in the intercountry adoption to Korea (Chapter 2, Section 2), Article 22(1) of the IAA provides that if an adoption is finalized in the country of origin, “it shall have effect in Korea in accordance with the law of the country of origin (being a Contracting State).” The underlined part is in direct contradiction to Article 26 of the Convention setting forth the effect of recognition under the Convention and should be amended. Second, in the intercountry adoption to Korea (Chapter 2, Section 2), Article 22(2) of the IAA provides that “if the requirements under Article 217(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (“CPA”) are met, it shall have effect in Korea in accordance with the law of the country of origin (being a non-Contracting State).” The underlined part is against Article 217 of the CPA regarding the recognition of foreign judgments. Therefore, it is necessary to arrange for the Korea Private International Law Association to review the IAA and revise the same before its implementation. Subordinate legislation (presidential decree, ministry of health and welfare decree, and supreme court rules) under the IAA should be properly prepared during the time remaining until the IAA enters into force. The Korean Government should also take appropriate measures to ratify the Convention, including making various declarations in time for its entry into force. Adoption is a very important legal system because (i) it changes the status (parent-child relationship) of a person (adoptee) as a member of society, (ii) the national laws of the country of origin and the receiving country, which stipulate different requirements and effects of adoption, are applied, and (iii) the Convention being an international norm at a different level, is applied overlappingly, so the legal ramifications surrounding intercountry adoption governed by the Convention are inevitably very complicated.

2018년 국제사법 전부개정법률안에 따른 국제재판관할규칙: 총칙을 중심으로

석광현 동아대학교 법학연구소 2018 國際去來와 法 Vol.- No.21

In order to introduce detailed rules on international jurisdiction to adjudicate the Ministry of Justice of Korea (“KMOJ”) had established in June of 2014 a committee (Committee) in charge of amendment of the Private International Law Act of Korea (“KPILA”) and the Committee made efforts to prepare a draft of amended KPILA. Unfortunately, however, the Committee could not complete its mission of preparing a draft. Afterwards the KMOJ prepared a draft of the amended KPILA (“Draft”) and made a prior legislative notice to the public on January 19, 2018. The greatest significance of the Draft is that it has introduced detailed rules on international jurisdiction, which is one of the most fundamental issues in international litigation, which ensures predictability of the courts and the parties to the litigation. However, the Draft has accepted under strict requirements the doctrine of forum non conveniens as understood under Anglo-American law as a means to ensure concrete validity in individual cases. In sum, the Draft aims to enhance legal certainty by introducing detailed rules on international jurisdiction on the one hand, and to ensure concrete validity in individual cases at the same time by allowing the discretion of the courts on the other hand. In this article the author briefly explains major contents of the general parts of Chapter 1 of the Draft following the order of the articles. Article 2 (general rules), Article 3 (general jurisdiction), Article 4 (special jurisdiction of place of business office), Article 5 (special jurisdiction based upon presence of property), Article 6 (jurisdiction based upon relationship), Article 7 (jurisdiction of counter-claim), Article 8 (jurisdiction agreement), Article 9 (appearance), Article 10 (exclusive jurisdiction), Article 11 (lis pendens), Article 12 (decline of international jurisdiction), Article 13 (exclusion of application), Article 14 (jurisdiction of interim measures) and Article 15 (jurisdiction of non-contentious matters). It should be noted that jurisdictional rules will need to be adapted to the change of time. In order to do that we need to review the issues arising from concrete court precedents to be accumulated with time and at the same time to ensure the consistency with jurisdictional rules at the international level and those of other countries. 정치한 국제재판관할규칙을 도입하고자 법무부는 2014년 6월 국제사법개정위원회(“위원회”)를 구성하였고 위원회는 국제사법의 개정안을 성안하기위한 작업을 진행하였으나 개정안을 채택하지 못하였다. 그 후 법무부는 국제사법 개정법률안 초안(“개정안”)을 성안하여 2018. 1. 19. 입법예고를 하였다. 금번 국제사법 개정안의 가장 큰 의의는 국제소송에서 가장 기본적인쟁점의 하나인 국제재판관할규칙을 국제사법에 규정함으로써 법원과 당사자의 예측가능성을 제고하는 규칙을 담았다는 점이다. 다만 개별사건에서구체적 타당성을 기하기 위한 방편으로 영미식의 부적절한 법정지의 법리를 엄격한 요건 하에 수용하였다. 요컨대 개정안은 정치한 국제재판관할규칙을 도입함으로써 한편으로는 법적 안정성을 제고하고, 다른 한편으로는법원의 재량을 인정함으로써 개별사건에서 구체적 타당성을 보장한다. 여기에서는 조문 순서에 따라 총칙의 주요내용을 소개한다. 구체적인 논의순서는 다음과 같다. 제2조(일반원칙), 제3조(일반관할), 제4조(사무소ㆍ영업소 소재지 등의 특별관할), 제5조(재산소재지의 특별관할), 제6조(관련사건의 관할), 제7조(반소관할), 제8조(합의관할), 제9조(변론관할), 제10조(전속관할), 제11조(국제적 소송경합), 제12조(국제재판관할권의 불행사), 제13조(적용 제외), 제14조(보전처분의 관할)와 제15조(비송사건의 관할)이다. 국제재판관할규칙은 시대의 변화에 부응하여 변화하므로 장래 적절한 시점에재점검할 필요성이 있고 그런 작업을 위해서는 판례의 집적에 따라 제기되는 문제점을 검토하는 동시에, 국제재판관할에 관한 국제규범의 추이를 예의주시함으로써 국제적 정합성을 확보하기 위해 노력해야 한다.

포레스트 매니아 판결들의 그늘: 베른협약ㆍ국제사법의 실종과 게임저작물에 대한 저작권의 준거법을 다룰 기회의 상실

석광현 한국국제사법학회 2023 國際私法硏究 Vol.29 No.2

2013년 4월경 ‘팜 히어로 사가’ 게임(“원고 게임물”)을 개발하여 페이스북 플랫폼을 통하여 전 세계에 출시한 원고(몰타국 회사인 King.com Limited)는 디지털 제스터 등과 공동으로 원고 게임물을 제작하였거나 디지털 제스터 등으로부터 저작권을 양수하였다. 홍콩 회사인 젠터테인은 피고(한국 회사)에게 자신이 개발한 포레스트 매니아 게임을 한국 시장에서 독점적으로 유통할 수 있는 라이선스를 허여하는 것 등을 내용으로 하는 모바일 게임 라이선스 계약을 2014년 1월경 체결하였고, 피고는 카카오톡 플랫폼으로 포레스트 매니아 게임의 한국어버전(“피고 게임물”)을 출시하여 구글 플레이 스토어와 애플 앱스토어를 통하여 제공하고 있다. 원고는 피고가 원고 게임물과 실질적으로 유사한 게임을 개발하여 이용자들에게 제공한 행위는 저작재산권 침해라는 이유로 침해행위의 정지 및 손해배상을 청구하고, 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률(부정경쟁방지법)상 부정경쟁행위임을 이유로 그의 금지 및 손해배상을 청구하였다. 제1심 법원은 저작권 침해는 부정하였으나 부정경쟁행위를 인정하고 손해배상을 명하였다. 원심 법원은 저작권 침해와 부정경쟁행위의 성립을 모두 부정하였다. 대법원 2019. 6. 27. 선고 2017다212095 판결(“이 사건 대법원 판결”)은 양자를 모두 긍정하여 원심 판결을 파기하고 사건을 환송하였다. 이 사건에서는 저작권 침해의 전제로서 원고 게임물의 창작성 유무와, 원고 게임물과 피고 게임물의 실질적 유사성이 주요 쟁점이었는데, 전자는 저작권의 성립의 문제이고 후자는 저작권 침해의 문제이다. 대법원은 양자를 모두 긍정하였다. 한편 원고가 원고 게임물의 저작권자인지는 저작권 귀속의 문제이다. 이 글에서는 첫째, 원고 게임물에 대한 저작권의 최초귀속(“귀속”), 성립 및 양도의 준거법과, 둘째, 저작권 침해의 준거법을 논의한다. “문학적․예술적 저작물의 보호를 위한 베른협약”(“베른협약”)은 저작권의 성립 및 양도의 저촉규범을 두고(해석상), 저작권 침해의 저촉규범을 명시하며(제5조 제2항), 영상저작물의 귀속의 준거법을 별도로 명시한다(제14조의2). 따라서 우리 법원들로서는 우선 베른협약을 적용하고, 만일 베른협약에 저촉규범이 없다면 국제사법을 적용하여 준거법을 결정하였어야 한다. 게임저작물은 어문저작물, 음악저작물, 미술저작물, 영상저작물, 컴퓨터프로그램 저작물 등이 결합된 복합적 성격의 저작물이므로 베른협약 제14조의2가 게임저작물에 어떻게 적용되는지도 검토하였어야 한다. 그러나 우리 법원들은 저촉규범에 대한 언급 없이 한국 저작권법을 적용한 탓에 베른협약과 국제사법이 실종되었다. 따라서 이 사건 판결들은 비록 실질법 차원에서는 큰 의미가 있더라도 저촉법 차원에서는 매우 유감스러운 판결들이다. 특히 대법원은 게임저작물에 관한 위 저촉법적 논점들을 명확히 다루었어야 한다. 국제적으로는, 베른협약 제5조의 해석론을 밝히고, 게임저작권의 성립의 준거법과 그 맥락에서 베른협약 제14조의2의 의미를 명확히 제시할 필요가 있었다. 국내적으로는, 저작권의 성립 준거법에 관하여 하급심 판결들이 나뉘므로 대법원이 해석을 통일할 필요가 있었다. 내용적으로는, 대법원이 모바일 게임저작물의 본국을 판단하여 게임저작권의 성립에 베른협약 제5조 제3항(본국법)과 제5조 제2항(보호국법...

국제재판관할에 관한 국제사법 개정 – 전체 개관

석광현 한국민사소송법학회 2022 민사소송 Vol.26 No.3

The work introducing the detailed rules of international adjudicatory jurisdiction (“jurisdictional rules”) by amending the 2001 Private International Law Act of Korea (“Former PILA”) finally came to fruition; the Private International Law Amendment Act was promulgated on January 4, 2022, and the amended Private International Law Act of Korea (“New PILA”) entered into force on July 5, 2022. The Former PILA had only three articles on jurisdictional rules, i.e., Article 2 (declaring the general principles of international jurisdiction) and Articles 27 and 28 (establishing the protective jurisdictional rules to protect consumers and employees, the socio-economically weaker parties). There are now thirty-six articles on jurisdictional rules. The general part is set forth in Chapter 1, Section 2 of the New PILA, and special parts are set forth for various legal relations in the first section of each chapter of the New PILA, most of which are rules on special jurisdiction. As its general part, the New PILA includes general principles of international jurisdiction and jurisdictional rules on general jurisdiction, place of office (business office) and business activities, location of property, related cases and counterclaims, jurisdiction agreements, jurisdiction based upon appearance, exclusive jurisdiction, lis pendens, non-exercise of international jurisdiction, exclusion of application, jurisdiction on preservation orders and non-contentious matters. As its special parts, each chapter of the New PILA includes jurisdictional rules on persons (Chapter 2), intellectual property rights (Chapter 5), claims (Chapter 6), family matters (Chapter 7), inheritance (Chapter 8), bills of exchange, promissory notes and checks (Chapter 9) and maritime commerce (Chapter 10). By stipulating, for the first time in Korea’s history, the jurisdictional rules in the New PILA, the international jurisdiction law of Korea entered a new era. On the one hand, the New PILA secures legal certainty and enhances predictability of the courts and the parties by specifying the detailed jurisdictional rules. On the other hand, jurisdictional justice is guaranteed in individual cases through the principle of lis pendens and non-exercise of international jurisdiction under exceptional circumstances (the latter is an improvement of the special circumstances theory of the Supreme Court precedents and was influenced by the doctrine of forum non conveniens of the common law jurisdicitons) by giving certain limited discretion to the courts. If the New PILA is to be successful, the Korean courts must correctly understand the gist of the jurisdictional rules of the New PILA and use their discretion appropriately in order to achieve the purpose of the New PILA. The author looks forward to a collection of excellent Korean courts precedents faithful to the New PILA in the future. The structure of the New PILA is noteworthy in that the jurisdictional rules and the choice of law rules, in each chapter, stand side by side like two wings, while putting the detailed detailed jurisdictional rules in the New PILA. Korea’s transition to a two-wing system, from the Former PILA which, like Germany, only contained choice of law rules, is noteworthy not only from the Korean point of view, but also from a comparative private international law perspective. An important reason for the transition is that the jurisdictional rules and the choice of law rules are closely related, and the decision to transit was influenced by the attitudes of the common law jurisdicitons, the Swiss Private International Law Act, and the Hague Conference on Private International Law, all of which have a broad understanding of private international law not limited to choice of law rules. The order of discussion is as follows: the basic concept of international adjudicatory jurisdiction law (Chapter II), the need for legislative resolution of international adjudicatory jurisdictional rules, gui...

채무자회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이른바 통합도산법)에 따른 국제도산법의 개관

석광현 한국민사소송법학회 2006 민사소송 Vol.10 No.2

개정 국제사법(國際私法)의 소개 : 국제거래(國際去來)에 미치는 영향을 중심으로

석광현,Suk, Kwang-Hyun 한국무역상무학회 2003 貿易商務硏究 Vol.20 No.-

The Law amending the Conflict of Laws Act of the Republic of Korea ("Korea"), which had taken two years to prepare, was promulgated on April 7, 2001 and finally took effect as of July 1, 2001. Accordingly, the old earlier Conflict of Laws Act which was called "Seoboesabeop" in Korean ("Prior Act"Old Act) was replaced by the new Conflict of Laws Act called "Gukjesabeop" in Korean ("New Act"). In fact the Old Act Prior Act was promulgated in 1962, but it was regarded as outdated from the moment of its promulgation. However, since the Old Act because it was modeled after the chapter of the Private International Law of the Einfuehrungsgesetz zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch (EGBGB) of the Federal Republic of Germany ("German PIL") and the Japanese Private International Law ("Japanese PIL") which had been promulgated toward the end of the 19th century., the Old Act was viewed as outdated from the moment of its promulgation. As a result of the drastic change of the environment for international trade of which that has taken took place in parallel with the global information technology revolution on a global basis, the scope of issues to be addressed which should be resolved by the conflict of laws principles has been remarkably expanded, and various new issues of an entirely which are quite new in its type and nature have arisen been raised. In the field of conflict of laws in its narrow sense, a revolution or crisis of the traditional conflict of laws has been brought about by the advent in the United States rise of a the new methodology for of the conflict of laws, of the United States of America and in the process of overcoming the such crisis the conflict of laws of the European continent has undergone substantial changes such as the diversification of the connecting principles, the expansion of the principle of party autonomy and the consideration of the value of the substantive law to protect socio-economically weaker parties of. The Prior Act, which was based on However, with the mechanical connecting principles and contained various outdated the inappropriate provisions, the Old Act could not cope with the issues raised by the internationalization and globalization of the Korean society. Furthermore In addition, the Old Act Prior Act was regarded as insufficient in that it lacked rules on international jurisdiction to adjudicate, or international adjudicatory jurisdiction, whereas the expectation of the public was that the Conflict of Laws a Act should function as the "Basic Law of the International Legal Relationships"encompassing rules on international jurisdiction given the increase of international disputes. Furthermore the private international law has also attracted more attention from the Korean At the beginning of the new Millennium, thanks to the promulgation of the New Act, I believe that Korea has succeeded in achieving the modest goal of reflecting in the its codification substantial parts of the major developments of the private international law which the leading advanced continental European countries had achieved during the last century. The New Act has followed the approach of the traditional conflict of laws of the European continent. It is a product of the efforts to eliminate the then existing problems of the Prior Old Act and to adapt the Korean private international law regime to the standard of international conventions and national laws of advanced countries. Unlike the Prior Old Act which was heavily dependent upon the prior Japanese PIL and the prior German PIL, the New Act has been prepared by taking into full account the Rome Convention, the Swiss PIL, the new German PIL which took effect in 1986 and various conventions adopted by the Hague Conference. Therefore, the New Act has substantially reduced dependence upon the Japanese PIL and the German PIL, and has gained relatively greater universal validity. The fact that the New Act expressly declares that the determination of international jurisdiction

국제상사중재에서의 중재합의에 관한 법적 문제점 - 대법원 2004. 12. 10. 선고 2004다20180 판결이 제기한 뉴욕협약상의 쟁점들을 중심으로 -

석광현 한국중재학회 2005 중재연구 Vol.15 No.2

涉外不法行爲의 準據法 決定에 관한 小考

石光現 법조협회 1994 법조 Vol.43 No.9