RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      선택해제

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • KCI등재

        不動産取得時效制度의 存在理由에 對한 考察

        김상현(Kim Sang Hyun),이창석(Lee Chang Suck),이범관(Lee Buem Gwan) 한국부동산학회 2008 不動産學報 Vol.32 No.-

          1. CONTENTS<BR>  (1) RESEARCH OBJECTIVES<BR>  This research has purposed on establishing the standard or direction of the right analysis about the requisite as well as effect through the justification for existence of acquisitive prescription system of real estate.<BR>  (2) RESEARCH METHOD<BR>  We choose literature research methods through various kinds of material domestic and foreign books and theses.<BR>  (3) RESEARCH RESULTS<BR>  Acquisitive Prescription System of Real Estate is necessary to be existed from the viewpoint of society and public interest, in these days. That system basically rules the relationship bet ween the real person of proprietary rights(the person who has the original proprietary rights) and the person who accomplishes the prescription.<BR>  Therefore the protection of the fair trade is only collateral or instinctive function. So we have to very strictly analysis on the way to give weight to the real person of proprietary rights when we interpret the applicable prescription.<BR>  2. RESULTS<BR>  In these days, there is no argument that Acquisitive Prescription System of Real Estate must be necessary to be existed from the viewpoint of society and public interest. But there is undeniable fact that system restricts a principle of absolute proprietary rights. Hence the striction on analysis the applicable prescription is demanded.<BR>  We have been approached theoretically and practically on the justification for existence of acquisitive prescription system of real estate.<BR>  As a result, the Supreme Court denies the pendency(succession) of the good faith and liability without fault on acquisitive prescription of register, yet affirms the succession of the registration and possession. That means the Supreme Court prefers to protect the fair trade through making easy a possessor accomplish prescription. However, that must be reformed because it is contrary to the rules of strict analysis.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료

      해외이동버튼