코오넬 의학 지수를 중심으로 심신의 자각증상 수소반응으로 본 간호대학생의 정신건강 평가

이춘원,한상임,박재순 中央醫學社 1977 中央醫學 Vol.32 No.3

An attempt was made to determine characteristic aspects of mental and physical health of nursing college students in the capital city of Korea by using the Cornell Medical Index. The study has been made from September to November in 1976 : CMI was given to 759 nursing college students (358 4th year and. 401 1st year) and 824 other (non-nursing) college girls in Seoul. The groups were statistically compared and showed following results: 1) The 4th year nursing college group had mean score of 37.84 while 4th year non-nursing college girls had 41.40 and 1st year nursing college girls had mean score of 40.14. It is noticeable that 4th year nursing students had lower score than control group. 2) There was little difference in physical complaints but considerable in mental. The mean score of mental complaints among 4th year nursing college students was 13.29 while the control group had mean score of 15.24. The: 1st year nursing students showed mean score of 15.70. 3) Considering the mean score there were big differences in items E, G, J, N, O, Q,R, between the 4th year nursing students and 4th year of non-nursing students; and also 4th year nursing students and 1st year nursing students had differences items H,M,N,P,Q. 4) In the Item analysis, the items, D, M, G, A, Q, H had higher score proportionally among the 4th year students (both nursing and others). The first year of nursing students had higher mean score on the items M, D, G, Q, A, B. And also the first year of non-nursing students had higher mean score on the item M, D, G, A, Q, B 5) Through the mean score of general health evaluation of 4th year of nursing students, one can find following: to study medicine can bring a lot of change in terms of health care, both physical and mental. The fact that non-nursing students, who have not studied medicine had higher mean score shows a strong need of renovation of school health care system (especially mental) in non-nursing colleges.

아파트 단지 지하 주차장의 상가 입주자의 사용 여부 - 대법원 2022. 1. 13. 선고 2020다278156 판결의 평석 -

이춘원 한국집합건물법학회 2022 집합건물법학 Vol.41 No.-

When there is a shopping mall in an condominium complex, parking conflicts between condominium residents and merchants frequently occur. This is a vehicle related to merchants' business, and it occurs when the apartment tenants' representative meeting restricts the parking of shopping mall users for reasons such as lack of parking space for apartment residents and security reasons. Such parking disputes have been resolved by the Supreme Court from the past by the jurisprudence of the land use right or the use of the common part under the Collective Building Act. The Supreme Court’s decision on 2020da278156, sentenced on January 13, 2022, restricted the access of cars, such as merchants and customers, who entered the shopping mall to the underground parking lot of the apartment complex. A lawsuit was filed for the prohibition of the act of interfering with the In response, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's claim, judging that the underground parking lot was a part of the common part only for apartment tenants, excluding the occupants of the commercial building, without judging whether the underground parking lot was a common part by law or a common part according to the rules. In this study, we evaluate the conclusion and rationale of the Supreme Court ruling that the underground parking lot of an apartment building is partly shared. 아파트 단지 내에 상가가 있는 경우에 아파트 거주자와 상인 사이의 주차 갈등이 빈번히 발생되고 있다. 이는 상인의 영업과 관련된 차량으로 아파트 거주자의 주차 공간 부족, 보안 등을 이유로 아파트 입주자대표회의가 상가 이용자의 주차를 제한하면서 발생한다. 이러한 주차로 인한 분쟁을 종전부터 대법원은 집합건물법상의 대지사용권 또는 공용부분의 사용에 관한 법리로 해결하여 왔다. 대법원 2022. 1. 13. 선고 2020다278156 판결에서는 아파트 단지 지하주차장에 대하여 상가에 입점한 상인이나 고객 등의 자동차 출입은제한하고 있었는데, 상가의 구분소유자와 임차인이 단지관리단을 상대로 지하주차장의 이용을 방해하는 행위를 금지하고 위자료의 지급을 청구하는 소를 제기하였다. 이에 대하여 대법원은 지하주차장이 법정 공용부분인지 규약상 공용부분인지를 판단하지 않고, 지하주차장을 상가건물의 입주자를 배제하고 아파트 입주자들만의 일부공용부분으로 판단하여 원고의 청구를 기각하였다. 본 연구에서는 아파트 지하 주차장을 일부 공용부분으로 판단한 대법원 판결의 결론 및 근거를 평가한다

집합건물의 물적 구성부분에 관한 고찰

이춘원 한국집합건물법학회 2012 집합건물법학 Vol.10 No.-

The Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings seems to provide that an condominium is divided into sections for exclusive ownership and sections for common use while a prevailing opinion suggests that one aggregate building is divided into two types of building sections; section for exclusive ownership and section for common use. This is because the prevailing opinion is based on the mosaic theory focusing on sections for exclusive ownership. However, it is not practicable to apply the idea based on the mosaic theory any more in the divided ownership theory. Currently, under the divided ownership theory, persons holding a divided ownership jointly possess the whole aggregate building which is composed of sections for divided ownership and sections for undivided ownership. Sections for divided ownership vest in each person holding a divided ownership as sections for exclusive ownership while sections for undivided ownership remain as a joint ownership. Therefore, an aggregate building is classified into ‘section for exclusive ownership’ and ‘sections other than section for exclusive ownership (i.e., sections for joint use). In addition, these sections for joint ownership can be divided into sections which each person holding a divided ownership has an exclusive right to use and sections for common use. Thus, any sections for common ownership which one person holding a divided ownership has an exclusive right to use are not sections for common use, but such sections for common ownership are not subject to Article 11 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and can be exclusively used by a person holding a divided ownership who has an exclusive right to use. On the other hand, it is permissible to provide any sections for exclusive ownership as sections for common use by an agreement. Such sections refer to ‘Sections for common use under an agreement’ and are stipulated by Article 3.2 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings. It is reasonable to divide an aggregate building into sections for exclusive ownership and sections for common use on a basis of ownership. This study researched the extent of sections for exclusive ownership in boundaries, structures and appendages of a building with respect to relationship between sections for exclusive ownership and sections for common use and the scope of sections for exclusive ownership. 집합건물법에서 집합건물은 전유부분과 공용부분으로 나누어지는 것처럼 규정하고 있고, 다수설은 집합건물에 있어서 1동의 건물은 전유부분과 공용부분의 2종류의 건물부분으로 나누어진다고 한다. 이는 전유부분만을 중시하는 성냥갑식 이론에 바탕을 두고 있기 때문이다. 그러나 오늘날 구분소유이론에서 더 이상 성냥갑식 이론에 기초를 둔 발상은 적용되기 어렵다. 구분소유법리는 집합건물 전체를 구분소유자들이 공동으로 소유하는데, 구분소유 되는 부분과 구분소유가 되지 않는 부분이 존재하게 된다. 구분소유 되는 부분은 구획되어 각 구분소유자에게 전유부분으로 귀속하며, 구분소유 되지 않은 부분은 공유로 남게 된다. 따라서 집합건물은 ‘전유부분’과 ‘전유부분이 되지 못한 부분, 즉 공유로 남는 부분’으로 구별된다. 그리고 이 공유부분은 발코니 등과 같이 각 구분소유자에게 전속적인 사용권이 주어진 부분과 구분소유자들의 공동사용에 충당되는 부분으로 구별된다. 공유부분이라도 구분소유자 1인이 전속적 사용권을 가지는 부분은 공용부분이 아니며, 이러한 부분에 대하여는 집합건물법 제11조가 적용되지 않고 전속적 사용권을 가지는 구분소유자가 독점적으로 사용할 수 있다. 반대로 전유부분이라고 규약으로 공용으로 할 수 있는데, 이를 규약상 공용부분이라고 하고 집합건물법 제3조 2항에서 이를 규정하고 있다. 집합건물은 소유를 기준으로 전유부분과 공유부분으로 구분하는 것이 합리적이다. 본 논문에서는 전유부분과 공용부분의 상호관계 및 전유부분의 범위와 관련하여 구체적으로 경계부분, 건물의 골격부분, 건물의 부속물 등에 있어서 어디까지가 전유부분인지를 살펴보았다.

지역주택조합과 법률관계 구성

이춘원 한국집합건물법학회 2017 집합건물법학 Vol.21 No.-

정부는 대도시를 비롯한 주거문제를 해결하기 위하여, 1963년 공영주택법을 제정한 이래, 1972년 주택건설촉진법, 2003년 주택법으로 변천되는 주택관련 법률을 제정하여 주거문제를 해결하기 위한 정책을 지속적으로 시행하고 있다. 1980년까지의 주택정책은 등록사업자가 주택 건설 사업을 시행하는 것을 기본골격으로 추진되어 왔으나, 1980년에 추가적으로 등록 사업자이외에 조합을 결성하여 주택 건설 사업을 시행하는 주택조합제도를 도입하였다. 주택조합제도의 도입 초기에는 까다로운 조합원 자격 요건, 주택조합 등록 사업자의 소유 토지 사용 금지 등의 조항으로 인해 그다지 활용되지 못하였다. 그러나 사업초기에 자금마련의 어려움이 많은 등록사업자들의 입장에서는 주택조합제도의 특성은 나름대로 활용성이 있었다. 그중에서 지역주택조합제도는 조합원 가입 요건이 비교적 까다롭지 않아, 일부 변형된 형태로 활용되기 시작하였다. 또한, 기존 재개발・재건축 사업처럼 추진위원회 승인, 안전 진단 통과, 관리 처분 인가 등을 거치지 않아 사업 절차가 비교적 단순하고 사업 진행 속도가 비교적 빠르며, 조합원 입장에서 비교적 저렴하게 내 집을 마련할 수 있는 장점이 있다. 2003년 주택법 개정으로 조합원의 거주요건이 강화되어(인접 시, 군 제외) 지역주택조합은 급격히 위축되었으나, 2009년부터 재개발・재건축 정비사업의 실적이 감소하면서 틈새시장으로서 지역주택사업이 해마다 증가하고 있다. 특히, 2014년 9・1 부동산 대책에 대한 후속 조치로 주택조합 규제 완화를 위한 주택법 시행령 개정이 이루어짐에 따라 주택조합 아파트가 부동산 시장 회복세에 힙 입어 인기를 끌고 있다. 이처럼 지역주택조합 방식을 활용한 주택공급사례가 급격히 증가하고 있으나 주택조합에 가입한 주택수요자를 보호할 수 있는 법적·제도적 안전장치가 미비하여 조합원 등이 피해를 입는 사례가 자주 발생하고 있다. 지역주택조합제도의 개선 필요성이 높아지고 있는 상황에서, 2016년 12월 2일 주택법 개정으로 조합원의 조합 탈퇴 및 환급 관련 규정을 신설하는 등 그동안의 문제점을 반영하였다. 그러나 주택조합의 본질적인 문제는 여전히 남아 있어 이에 대한 검토가 필요한 상황이다. 지역주택조합의 법적 성격과 관련하여, 조합원 귀속분의 아파트가 조합을 거치지 않고 조합원에게 직접 귀속되는 점(원시 취득하는 점), 공사비 부담도 조합원 개개인에게 독립적으로 부담시킨 점을 설명하려면 조합적 구성을 타당하다. 그러나 일반분양분의 귀속을 설명하기 위해서는 조합원과 독립된 법인격이 인정되어야 한다. 지역주택조합의 법인격에 관한 규정이 없으므로, 판례 및 학설은 부득이 조합의 독립성을 얻는 방법으로 단체성을 강조하고 (권리능력 없는)사단으로 구성하고 있다. 그러나 이것은 이론적 한계가 있으며, 궁극적인 해결은 지역주택조합의 법인격을 인정하는 방법이 필요하다. Since the government enacted the Public Housing Act in 1963 to address housing issues including big cities, the government has continuously enforced policies to solve residence problems by enacting housing-related acts such as the Housing Construction Promotion Act in 1972 and the Housing Act in 2003. Until 1980, housing policies had been executed under the basic framework that a housing construction project should be implemented by a registered business operator; however, in 1980, a housing association system was additionally introduced so that an established association besides a register business operator could implement a housing construction project. Initially, the housing association system was not utilized much due to provisions including strict member requirements, the prohibition of use of the land owned by a business operator who registered in a housing association, etc. However, as for a registered business operator having many difficulties in raising funds at the beginning of a project, the characteristics of the housing association system deserved to be utilized in their way. Among others, in case of the district housing association system, its joining requirements for membership were not relatively strict so that it began to be utilized in some modified form. Furthermore, unlike existing redevelopment/rebuilding projects, it was not demanded to pass through such procedures as getting an approval from a promotion committee, passing safety diagnosis, getting a permission for management and disposal so that not only its business process was simple and its pace of business was speedy, in a relative sense, but it also had an advantage for a member of an association to become a home owner comparatively inexpensively. The amendment of the Housing Act in 2003 drove the residential qualification for members tightened (neighboring Sis/Guns excluded) so that district housing associations rapidly shrank; however, the performance of redevelopment/rebuilding maintenance projects had declined since 2009, which made district housing projects grow every year as a niche market. In particular, as the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act was revised for the relaxation of regulations related to housing associations as a follow-up measure of the 9·1 real estate policy in 2014, housing association-based apartments gained popularity with the recovery of the real estate market. Like this, the number of housing cases utilizing the district housing association system had rapidly increased; nonetheless, the insufficiency of legal/institutional safeguards to protect housing consumers joining housing associations had often triggered cases where members, etc. had been damaged. In the situation where the need to improve the district housing association system had been increasing, the issues that had happened was reflected in the amendment of the Housing Act on February 2nd in 2016, such as establishing regulations in connection with members’ withdrawals from associations and refunds. However, a fundamental issue relating to a housing association remains, which requires to be examined. As for legal characteristics which a district housing association has, an association-based constitution is reasonable in order to explain the facts that apartments which vest in members directly belong to members without going through associations (in case of original acquisitions) and that each member should bear construction costs, respectively. However, the recognition of an independent legal personality as distinct from members should take precedence over the explanation of the attribution to general lot-solid housing. The absence of regulations on the legal personality of a district housing association inevitably has led precedents or theories to emphasize its group preference as a way to grant its independence and to regard it as an unincorporated association. Nonetheless, this theoretically has a limitation and the way to admit the legal pe...

공동주택 관리에 관한 법률의 입법방향에 관한 소고

이춘원 한국집합건물법학회 2021 집합건물법학 Vol.39 No.-

The management of Multi-Family Housing can be divided into ownership-centered management based on ‘Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings’ and occupant-centered management based on ‘Multi-Family Housing Management Act’. However, in the case of small-scale multi-family housing, there is a resident-centered management gap by restricting the Multi-family housing subject to compulsory management in Multi-Family Housing Management Act. In order to supplement this, an attempt was made to supplement the management of tenants and other occupants in Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings through the revision of Act. However, these attempts lead to inconsistencies in the legal system. ‘Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings’ and ‘Multi-Family Housing Management Act’ should be amended in a direction that is faithful to their original roles of protection of separate ownership and occupant-centered management, respectively. This study pointed out the tipping point where legislation is being implemented in the direction of expanding the management of Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings. For tenants of small Multi-Family Housing with deficiencies in the living management regulations, etc, because the scope of application of Multi-Family Housing Management Act is limited. 공동주택의 관리는 집합건물법에 근거한 소유권을 중심의 관리와 공동주택관리법에 기한 입주자 중심의 관리로 구분할 수 있다. 그런데, 공동주택관리법에서 의무관리대상인 공동주택을 제한함으로서 소규모 공동주택의 경우에 입주자 중심의 관리 공백이 발생한다. 이를 보완하기 위하여 집합건물법의 개정을 통하여 집합건물법에 임차인 등 입주자 관리를 보완하려는 시도가 있었다. 그러나 이러한 시도는 법체계상 부조화를 초래한다. 집합건물법과 공동주택관리법은 각각 구분소유권 보호와 입주자를 중심의 관리라는 본연의 역할에 충실하는 방향으로 개정되어야 한다. 본 연구에서는 공동주택관리법의 적용범위 제한으로 생활관리 규정의 흠결이 있는 소규모 공동주택의 임차인 등을 위하여 최근 집합건물법의 관리를 확대하는 방향으로 입법이 행하여지고 있는 바, 이는 문제의 소지가 있음을 지적하였다. 주제어: 공동주택, 집합건물법, 공동주택관리법, 의무관리 대상 공동주택

부동산이중매매와 배임죄: 대법원 2018. 5. 17. 선고 2017도4027 판결의 평석

이춘원 한국부동산법학회 2019 不動産法學 Vol.23 No.1

In the judgment, the seller can not cancel contract of property once the seller has received the middle payment. Nevertheless, if the seller double-traded the property does occur, it would represent an act of foregoing the responsibility to cooperate in the process of transferring the registration of ownership, which would then be considered a misappropriation. However, questions remain regarding the following: whether applying criminal measures in a civil transaction oversteps the limits of criminal law, whether the seller can assume the legal role of maintaining the other party’s property solely on the grounds that the middle payment had been transferred, and whether subjecting only double dealing to criminal prosecution - while recognizing the need to address this particular issue in order to ensure the integrity of the real estate market - violates the concept of fairness. In the penal code, the term “other person’s work” as required by the criminal offense shall be deemed to be a relationship in which the other person’s work can be done on behalf of another person. Whether the object of sale is property or goods is to fulfill the obligation of contract, it is ‘own affairs’, and even if it is ‘affair’ for some others, it is not ‘affairs of others’ itself. The real property trading is also a contract of goods trading like a goods sales. Therefore, in the case of the transfer of the registration of real property, the obligation of the seller to cooperate with the registration in the case of disclosure for the transfer of ownership from the seller to the buyer is also a civil liability. Therefore, the double real estate sale is merely a default of the seller 's debt to the first buyer, and the obligation to register is not an affair of another person, which is a component of the criminal offense under the penal code. Therefore, the position of the judgment should be reviewed and we expect to change its position in the future. 대상 판결에서 매도인이 중도금을 수령한 후에는 더 이상 매매계약을 해제할 수 없다는 이유로, 매도인이 목적 부동산을 제3자에게 이중으로 매매한 것은 잔금의 수령과 동시에 등기이전에 협력할 의무를 저버린 배신행위로서 비난가능성이 있으므로 배임죄를 인정하고 있다. 그러나 중도금을 수령한 것만으로 매도인이 타인의 재산 관리 또는 보호자에 준하는 지위를 인정할 수 있을만한 것인지, 민사거래에 대하여 형사적으로 관여하는 것이 형벌의 보충성에 충실한 것인지 여부, 동산과 달리 부동산의 이중매매만을 배임죄로 형사 처벌하는 것이 형평에 맞는 것인지 라는 문제가 남는다. 형법상 배임죄에서 요구하는 ‘타인의 사무’란 타인을 대신하여 행하는 관계가 인정되어야 한다. 매매 목적물이 동산이든 부동산이든 매매 계약상 의무를 이행하는 것은 ‘자기의 사무’이고, 일부가 ‘타인을 위한’ 사무라고 하더라도 ‘타인의 사무’ 그 자체는 아니다. 동산과 마찬가지로 부동산 매매도 재화의 매매계약에 불과하다. 따라서 부동산에 관한 등기의 이전은 매도인으로부터 매수인에게로 소유권 이전을 위한 공시라는 면에서 매도인의 등기이전 협력의무도 민사상 채무에 불과하며, 배임죄에서 말하는 ‘타인의 사무를 처리하는 자’라고는 할 수 없다. 따라서 부동산 이중매매는 매도인의 제1매수인에 대한 채무의 불이행에 불과할 뿐이며, 등기이전의무가 형법상 배임죄의 구성요소인 ‘타인의 사무’가 된다고 할 수 없다. 따라서 대상 판결의 입장은 재검토되어야 하며 향후 입장의 변경을 기대하는 바이다.

상가집합건물의 수직증축 결의요건에 관한 검토

이춘원 한국집합건물법학회 2016 집합건물법학 Vol.18 No.-

상가집합건물의 구분소유자들이 대수선 및 증축을 결의하고, 이에 대한 허가를 신청한 경우에 대수선 허가처분과 증축 허가처분에 대한 결의 요건과 관련하여 문제가 된다. 대수선 허가처분에 대해서는 항소심과 대법원이 일치하여 대수선은 집합건물법 제15조 1항의 ‘공용부분의 변경’에 해당하므로, 집합건물법 제15조 1항에 따라 관리단 집회에서 구분소유자의 4분의 3 이상 및 의결권의 4분의 3 이상의 결의로써 결정할 수 있는 것을 전제로 하여, 그 허가처분의 유효성을 인정하였다. 그러나 상가집합건물을 수직으로 증축하여 판매시설을 만드는 것에 대하여는 항소심과 대법원이 그 판단을 달리하였다. 항소심은 집합건물의 ‘공용부분 변경’으로 보아, 집합건물법 제15조 제1항 또는 제41조 제1항에 따라 상가의 구분소유자들 및 그 의결권의 각 4분의 3 이상의 찬성 또는 각 5분의 4 이상의 서면결의만으로 가능한 것으로 보았다. 반면에 대법원은 상가건물을 수직으로 증축하여 판매시설을 새로 만드는 경우와 같이 구분소유자의 전유부분에 대한 소유권의 범위 및 대지사용권의 내용에 변동을 일으키는 경우에는 집합건물의 공용부분의 단순한 변경이 아니므로 집합건물법 제15조 제1항의 적용을 배제하고 민법상 일반적인 공유물의 처분 변경 법리로 돌아가 민법 제264조에 따라 구분소유자 전원의 동의를 요한다는 입장이다. 본 연구에서는 집합건물을 수직으로 증축하여 판매시설을 만드는 것이 제15조의 ‘공용부분의 변경’에 해당하는 지를 살펴보고, 이와 관련된 논점을 검토하였다. There is an issue in connection with the requirements for resolution of permitted disposal for big repair and permitted disposal for building extension when the divided owners have resolved bid repair and extension for a commercial condominium building and applied for permission on such resolution. Regarding the decision on permitted disposal for big repair, both the court of appeal the Supreme Court recognized the effectiveness of the permitted disposal, assuming that big repair may be made by a resolution of more than 3/4 of the divided owners and more than 3/4 of voting rights since such repair constitutes a change of common area under Article 15.1 of the Condominium Act. However, regarding making a sales facility through vertical extension of commercial condominium buildings, the court of appeal and the Supreme Court have difference decisions. The court of appeal decided that a sale facility by extension can be made by an affirmative vote of more than 3/4 of the divided owners and their voting rights or a written resolution of more than 4/5 of them in accordance with Article 15.1 or Article 41.1 of the Condominium Act, considering such extension as the ‘change of common area” of an aggregate building. On the other hand, the Supreme Court held that newly making a sale facility through vertical extension of a commercial condominium building requires unanimous consent of divided owners in accordance with Article 264 of the Civil Act, relying on the general, legal principle of disposal and change of common properties under the Civil Act but excluding the application of Article 15.1 of the Condominium Act, because any change in the scope of the ownership and the details of the right to use land, such as newly making a sale facility by vertical extension of a commercial building, is not a simple change of common area of the condominium. This study researched whether making a sale facility by vertical extension of an condominium constitutes the change of common area, and reviewed the related issues.

독일의 건축공사 대금채권담보에 관한 고찰

이춘원 한국민사법학회 2009 民事法學 Vol.46 No.-

The Civil Act 665, 1 ordains payment in building contract to be made when the subject-matter finished is transferred, i. e. as those of the concurrent relation in building contract are the transfer of completion works and the issue of payment, A contractor can't get paid in building contract until he redeems most of benefit first in the process of completing works, and transfer the building later. Such as this, a contractor should redeem first in completing works and supplying material in building contract. However, if an undertaker doesn't make payment, it is impossible or meaningless to recover the provision of completion works and material provided by canceling the contract. Hence, the civil law imposes condition precedent on a contractor and accepts settlement of mortgage over materialization of the provision of a contractor as the necessary complementary measure. As such, our Civil Act 666 ordains an estate contractor can request for a right to settle a mortgage to the subject-estate to guarantee a right to request for payment, which abolishes 'Des privilèges spéciaux' of the past civil law in the existing civil law and regulates new rules following German Civil Act 648,1. Yet, although our Civil Act 666 was setup with the support of the academic world when the civil code was established, there are much doubts in its effectiveness. German Civil Act 648, 1 which had a big influence on our Civil Act 666 has been also criticized in the past as a noneffective system as a means of security for a bond of a contractor and various solutions were suggested to cover these problems. In German law, the subject about securing a bond of a contractor of an estate construction starts from condition precedent of a contractor and loss of an ownership of material corresponding to the land of building. German Civil Act 648 complies with the principle of disclosure of registry and ranking, therefore acknowledged as not enough at all for protecting construction creditors like material suppliers as well as subcontractors already in the legislation step. As a result, it tried to solve the problem including dealing with construction fraud through a special law, which are 'Verdingungsordnung für Bauleistungen', 'Gesetz über die Sicherung der Bauforderungen vom 1. Juni 1909'. But judicial regulations under 'Gesetz über die Sicherung der Bauforderungen vom 1. Juni 1909' could not be executed and the problem German Civil Act 648 has come to surface all the more under the circumstances of specialization of construction industry after the World War II. To solve these problem, German Civil Act 648, a was legislated finally in 1993. German Civil Act 648, a leaves German Civil Act 648, 1 as it is, and set up in the way giving a right to cancel a contract itself as well as a right to reject the execution of provision to a contractor partially when a right to request a provision of security and security, according to the progress of building. Hence, Various suggestions and German Civil Act 648 a, which was offered to complement German Civil Act 648,1 is assumed to provide lots of implications in amendment and interpretation of our Civil Act 666.

[민법] 저당권 등기 후 압류 전 또는 후에 유치권을 취득한 자가 매수인에 대항할 수 있는지 여부

이춘원 고시계사 2010 考試界 Vol.55 No.10

정신과 환자를 위한 낮 병원

이춘원,서정향,강영옥 대한간호협회 1977 대한간호 Vol.16 No.1