채무자회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이른바 統合倒産法)에 따른 國際倒産法의 개관

As of April 1, 2006, the previous Bankruptcy Act, Composition Act and Corporate Reorganization Act have been replaced by the Act on Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy of Debtor (so-called the Consolidated Insolvency Act). In this ar-ticle, the author analyses the cross-border insolvency law or international in-solvency law regime under Chapter V of the Consolidated Insolvency Act. The cross-border insolvency regime of the Consolidated Insolvency Act has been mod-eled on the “Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency”, which the UNCITRAL adopted in May 1997. However, it should be also noted that the cross-border in-solvency regime of the Consolidated Insolvency Act has also been influenced by the “Act on Recognition of and Assistance for Foreign Insolvency Proceedings”of Japan which has been also based upon the Model law of the UNCITRAL and has taken effect as of April 1, 2001. Two of the striking differences between the Model law and the Korean cross-border insolvency law are as follows: First, the Model law distinguishes foreign main proceeding and foreign non-main proceeding, whereas the Korean law does not clearly distinguishes them in the context of recognition. Second, under the Model law, recognition of for-eign main proceeding triggers the automatic consequences set forth in Article 20, while upon recognition of foreign non-main proceeding the court may grant any appropriate relief in its discretion under Article 21. However, under the Korean cross-border insolvency regime, recognition of a foreign insolvency proceeding as such does not have any legal effect at all. It only means that the Korean court could grant discretionary relief in the assistance proceedings based upon its deci-sion recognizing the foreign insolvency proceeding. This very conservative idea was taken from the Japanese counterpart. More concretely, the author discusses the following issues: legislation of other countries including international norms (Chapter Ⅱ.), insolvency proceedings of foreigners under the Consolidated Insolvency Act (Chapter Ⅳ.), representative or receiver of foreign insolvency proceedings and access of foreign creditors to do-mestic insolvency proceedings (Chapter Ⅴ.), recognition of foreign insolvency pro-ceeding (Chapter Ⅵ.), outbound effect of domestic insolvency proceeding (Chapter Ⅶ.), concurrent proceedings (Chapter Ⅷ.), cooperation with foreign courts and foreign representatives (Chapter Ⅸ.), and conflict of laws implications in the con-text of cross-border insolvency (Chapter Ⅹ.). Finally the author urges Korean scholars and experts on civil procedures to pay more attention to, and to conduct more in-depth research on, the cross-border insolvency since cross-border in-solvency cases will definitely continue to increase given the internationalization of Korean companies and individuals.