채무자회생법상 회생절차와 선체용선계약상 선박소유자의 법적 지위 (The Rehabilitation Procedures and The Legal Status of the Ship-owners under the Bareboat Charter Party)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 동아대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 동아법학 / 95호 / 359 ~ 388페이지
· 저자명 : 이정원

초록

선체용선계약의 법적 성질에 관해서는, 개별 선체용선계약의 내용 여하에도 불구하고 용선선박의 적극적 사용․수익권을 용선자가 갖는 경우에는 상법 제847조에서 규정하는 선박임대차계약 내지 임대차계약과 유사한 계약으로 볼 수 있다. 한편 상법 제848조 제2항에서 규정하는 선체용선계약은 BARECON Part Ⅳ에서 규정하는 소유권취득조건부 선체용선계약을 의미하므로, 그 법적 성질은 금융리스로 보아야 한다. BARECON Part Ⅱ 제31조 (d)항은 소위 ‘계약해지조항’으로서, 계약해지의 제한을 통해 임차인을 보호하고자 하는 민법 제652조 및 635조 등에 반하는 것은 아닌지 의문이다. 그러나 채무회생법 제119조는 민법 제635조 및 제636조에 대한 특별규정으로 보아야 하므로, BARECON Part Ⅱ 제31조는 민법 제652조에 반하지 않는다. 다만 BARECON Part Ⅱ 제31조는, 채무자회생법 제119조가 규정하는 쌍방미이행 쌍무계약에 대한 관리인의 선택권을 침해하여 무효라고 보아야 한다. 소유권취득조건부 선체용선계약상 선체용선자의 용선료지급채무는 선박의 인수와 함께 지급해야 할 선박대금을 분할 지급하기로 한 것으로 보아야 하고, 채무자회생법 제119조에서 규정하는 미이행 쌍무계약에 해당되지 않으므로, 관리인은 위 법률 제119조에 따른 계약의 해지 등의 선택권을 행사할 수는 없다.

영어초록

Regardless of the contents of the individual Bareboat Charter Party (hereunder, ‘BBC’), if the charterer has the right to exclusively use and benefit from the chartered ship, it can be viewed as a lease of ship or a contract similar to the lease stipulated in Article 847 of the Commercial Code. Meanwhile, since the contract stipulated in Article 848 Paragraph 2 of the Commercial Code means the BBC with Hire Purchase Option (hereunder, ‘BBCHP’) stipulated in BARECON Part Ⅳ., the legal nature of the BBCHP should be understood as the finance lease. Article 124 (1) and (2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation And Bankruptcy Act (hereunder, ‘DRBA’) prescribes that when rehabilitation procedures commence for a debtor who is a lessor, any prepayment of rent or disposal of rent claims may not be asserted in relation to the rehabilitation procedures, with the exception of rent for the current and following terms at the time that such rehabilitation procedures commence. And anyone who suffers damage due to the inability to assert effects in relation to such rehabilitation procedures under paragraph (1) may exercise his or her right to seek damages in the capacity of a rehabilitation creditor. However, according to the above provisions, the charterers are at risk of having to pay hires twice, so it is unreasonable. Article 31 (d) of BARECON Part II is a so-called ‘Ipso Facto Clause’, and it is questionable whether it is against Articles 652 and 635 of the Civil Code, which seek to protect the lessee through the restriction of contract termination. However, as Article 119 of the DRBA should be regarded as a special provision for Articles 635 and 636 of the Civil Code, Article 31 of BARECON Part II does not go against Article 652 of the Civil Code. On the contrary, Article 31 of BARECON Part II should be regarded as invalid because it infringes on the custodian's right to choose an unfulfilled bilateral contract stipulated in Article 119 of the DRBA. In BBCHP, the charterer's obligation to pay hires is difficult to see as consideration for the use of the ship. The charterer's obligation to pay the hires shall be regarded as an installment payment of the ship price to be paid together with the takeover of the ship. Therefore, this kind of contract does not fall under the unfulfilled bilateral contract stipulated in Article 119 of the DRBA the custodian can not wield options prescribed in Article 119 of the DRBA.

참고자료

· 없음