CAJ | 학술논문

德国最高法院在裁判上承认民事合伙具有权利能力,将商法典中的普通合伙规制模式类推适用于民法典中的合伙,基本上消除了二者之间的制度差异。但依法律的字义、体系和制度发生史,二者规范之间的严格性程度并不相同,由此构成最高法院造法的界限。在代表权制度方面,不存在造法空间,维系民事合伙规范即可;在合伙人的人身责任方面,存在造法需要,具体就是必须填补因承认权利能力所产生的法律漏洞：这里仅适用工具性的类推适用,而不适用实质性的类推适用。合伙人可以通过限定代表权,将责任限定于合伙财产,但需要借助于格式条款法的禁止规避规范进行内容控制。在承认权利能力的情况下,不当得利请求权的债务人为民事合伙,而非合伙人;合伙人对民事合伙的侵权责任不承担人身无限责任,亦不存在实质性类推适用的目的基础;入伙人对入伙之前存在的合伙债务不承担责任,这里同样不存在类推适用的正当化理由。
덕국최고법원재재판상승인민사합화구유권리능력,장상법전중적보통합화규제모식유추괄용우민법전중적합화,기본상소제료이자지간적제도차이。단의법률적자의、체계화제도발생사,이자규범지간적엄격성정도병불상동,유차구성최고법원조법적계한。재대표권제도방면,불존재조법공간,유계민사합화규범즉가;재합화인적인신책임방면,존재조법수요,구체취시필수전보인승인권리능력소산생적법률루동：저리부괄용공구성적유추괄용,이불괄용실질성적유추괄용。합화인가이통과한정대표권,장책임한정우합화재산,단수요차조우격식조관법적금지규피규범진행내용공제。재승인권리능력적정황하,불당득리청구권적채무인위민사합화,이비합화인;합화인대민사합화적침권책임불승담인신무한책임,역불존재실질성유추괄용적목적기출;입화인대입화지전존재적합화채무불승담책임,저리동양불존재유추괄용적정당화이유。
German Supreme Court has recognized the capacity of rights exercised by civil partnership thus to analogize general commercial partnership in German Commercial Code into the partnership regulated in German Civil Code and has virtually erased the differences thereof. However the two systems differ in levels of strictness in aspects of literal meaning and system evolvement,which become the limit for creation of law by the Supreme Court. In the agency system,since rules on civil partnerships are appropriate,there is no room for creation of law. While with regard to personal liabilities of partners,it is required to create laws to fill the legal loophole caused by recognizing the capacity of rights of civil partnership. But this analogy is of instrumental feature rather than substantial feature. Partners can limit the power of agency and restrain the liability scope to the partnership assets but should resort to norms forbidding evasion regulated by rules on standard form contracts to control the content of civil partnerships. Under the condition of recognition,the civil partnership rather than the partners should be the debtor for claims of unjust enrichment. The tort liabilities which would be assumed by the civil partnership shall not become the partner＇s personal unlimited liability and there is no purpose basis for substantive analogy. The partner shall not assume liabilities occurred prior to joining the partnership and there is also no justifiable reason for application of analogy.