초록 : 이 글에서는 2011. 1. 1.부터 2011. 12. 31.까지 선고된 대법원 형법 판결 중 4건의 전원합의체판결을 평석하였다.대법원 2011. 1. 20. 선고 2008도10479 판결은 동산의 이중매매에 대한 판결이다. 대법원 2011. 3. 17.선고 2006도8839 판결은 불법감청한 내용을 공개한 방송기자의 죄책에 관한 것이다. 대법원 2011. 3.17. 선고 2007도482 판결은 파업이 업무방해죄의 위력에 해당되는가에 대한 것이다. 대법원 2011. 6.23. 선고 2008도7562 판결은 헌법불합치결정을 받은 형벌법규가 개정되지 않은 경우 소급효에 관한 것이다.각 평석은 모두 1. 사실관계 및 재판의 경과, 2. 판결요지, 3. 평석의 순으로 이루어졌다.Abstract : In the year of 2011, 232 criminal cases by the Korean Supreme Court(KSC) areregistered on the homepage of the court. 5 cases of which are decided by the Grand Panel. 4 casesof which are reviewed in this paper. All the reviews are constituted 1. Fact, 2. Summary ofDecision and 3. Critical Note.The contents of this paper is as follows;I. IntroductionII. The Grand Panel of KSC’s Judgement 2011. 1. 20.2008Do10479.In this case, the criminal resposibility of the double selling of the movable assets is disputed. Onthe contrary to the double selling of the unmovable assests, the court decided that the accused isnot guilty of Untreu(the breach of duty).III. The Grand Panel of KSC’s Judgement 2011. 3. 17 2006DO8839In this case, the criminal responsibility of the jouralist’s exposure of the illegally obtainedrecording by the Korean CIA is disputed. The court decided that the act of accused is illegal.IV. The Grand Panel of KSC’s Judgement 2011. 3. 17 2007DO482In this case, the criminal responsibility of the strike is disputed. KSC has changed it’s formerposition and decided that the strike in the limited situation could be guilty.V. The Grand Panel of KSC’s Judgement 2011. 6. 23 2008DO7562In this case, the validity of the criminal provision is debated, which the Korean ConstuitutionalCourt has decided not in accord with the constitutional law, even if, not unconstitutional. KSCdecided that the criminal provision is retroactively unvalid.

초록 : 이 글은 2011년 한 해 동안 대법원이 다룬 민사(채권법)에 관한 판결 중에서 필자가 임의적으로 선정한 주요 판결 12개를 대상으로 하여, 그 판결의 의미를 검토해 본 것이다.민법 제35조 제1항 소정의 ‘법인의 대표자’에 법인을 사실상 대표하여 법인의 사무를 집행하는 자가포함되는지 여부에 관한 대법원 2011. 4. 28. 선고 2008다15438 판결, 금융기관에 미회수금 손해가 발생하였다는 결과만으로 대표이사 등의 임무 해태로 인한 채무불이행 사실이 추정되는지 여부에 관한 대법원 2011. 10. 13. 선고 2009다80521 판결, 불법행위시와 변론종결시 사이에 많은 세월이 경과되어 통화가치 등에 상당한 변동이 생긴 경우에 위자료 원금의 증액 여부에 관한 대법원 2011. 1. 13. 선고2010다53419 판결 등은 의미 있는 판결로 보인다.특히 일반 공중의 통행에 제공된 도로에서 통행의 자유를 침해받은 자가 통행방해 행위의 금지를 소송상 청구할 수 있다는 대법원 2011. 10. 13. 선고 2010다63720 판결, 민법 제582조의 규정(제척기간)과관련하여 매도인의 하자담보책임에 기한 매수인의 손해배상청구권이 소멸시효의 대상이 된다는 대법원2011. 10. 13. 선고 2011다10266판결 등은 주목할 만한 판례로 보인다.Abstract : This paper deals with the deeper significance of 12 cases picked out arbitrarilyamongst the verdicts that has to do with Civil Obligations Law that the Korean Supreme Courthad handled throughout the year 2011.The following listed cases look to be quite meaningful in terms of its ruling. Supreme Court caseno. 2008da15438 heard, tried and announced on April 28th 2011, where there was a question ofwhether the corporate executor was included in the ‘representation of the corporation’ according tothe prescribed Civil Law no. 35 clause 1, Supreme Court case no. 2009da80521 heard, tried andannounced on October 13th 2011, whether presumptions can be made as to whether there was anactual default due to negligence in duties by the representative director just with the result thatthere was financial damage incurred with no collection of money to the financial institution, andSupreme Court case no. 2010da53419 heard, tried and announced on January 13th 2011 regardingthe increase in the original amount of alimony in the case where there was a significant change incurrency with many years passing between the occurrence of the illegal activity and thetermination of the defence plea.Other special note should be given to Supreme Court case no. 2010da63720 heard, tried and announced on October 13th 2011 where a person who was violated with their freedom of passageon public streets could file a lawsuit against such obstructions and the Supreme Court case no.2011da10266 heard, tried and announced on October 13th, 2011 where the time limited purchaser’sright of claim for damages can come under the extinctive prescription regarding the warrantyresponsibilities by the seller unlike the rule and principles (exclusion period) stated by Civil Lawno. 582.