http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 장재현(張在賢) (검색결과 107 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
장재현 경북대학교 법학연구원 2007 법학논고 Vol.0 No.26
[Abstract] Essay on Deposit in Korean Civil Law Chang, Jae-Hyoun* Deposit of Korean Civil law means thing for performance of obligation as extinction cause of claim. The Civil law of deposit has several points of construction as the following. 1. The provision of the latter part of the Civil law article 487 enacts “… where the obligee cannot be ascertained …”. What does this provision mean? And how does obligee demand thing deposited? 2. The Civil law article 489, clause 1 enacts “So long as the obligee has given his consent to the deposit or has been notified to receive the thing deposited in the Deposit Office or a judgement declaring the deposit effective has become final and binding, the depositor may recover the thing deposited …”. How and when does an obligation lapse regarding this rights of withdrawal? 3. What is nature of rights of withdrawal? And the Civil law article 489, clause 2 enacts “The provisions of the preceding Paragraph shall not apply where a pledge or a mortgage has been extinguished by making a deposit”. Then I wonder what has become of other security rights except for a pledge and a mortgage. A system of deposit settles an interest of parties and a state merely is custodian ought to having none of an interest in a legal act. So, to demand thing deposited can’t directly bring a civil action against a state. An obligation once lapses by deposit, but if thing deposited is withdrawn, an obligation is considered that it wasn’t retrospectively lapsed as from the time of deposit. Namely, obligation lapses on condition that exercising rights of withdrawal is a condition subsequent at the time of deposit. According to the Civil law article 489, clause 2, rights of withdrawal shall not be acknowledged when only a pledge or a mortgage has been extinguished by making a deposit. But other security rights except for a pledge and a mortgage are not all that different from a pledge and a mort- gage. Thus, the Civil law article 489, clause 2 must be applied to other security rights as well as a pledge and a mortgage.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
제3자를 위한 계약(민법 제539조, 제541조)에 대한 개정론
장재현 경북대학교 법학연구원 2014 법학논고 Vol.0 No.45
As for Article 539, Clause 1 and Clause 2 collide each other. Clause 1 is ruled in the direct acquisition theory (Akkreszentheorie) and Clause 2 is ruled in the agreement theory(Akzeptationstheorie), and collides each other. As a contract in favour of third person as for article 539, the judicial precedent and the majority theory make much of Clause 2 and interpret it by Akzeptationstheorie. Therefore the third person acquire the right to demand to obligor by the declaration of the intention to accept the benefit. But such an interpretation cannot make Article 541 and is not harmony with the article. It was concluded for Akkreszentheorie about the contract in favour of third person in modern civil law, and almost all countries except Japan and Korea adopt Akkreszentheorie. The Civil law Article 539 must be revised in Akkreszentheorie at such a point. According to Article 541 the right of the third person could be changed and abolished before the above declaration of the intention by the third person. In the case which obligee dies before the right of the third person is established, an heir could change or abolish the right of the third person according to Article 541. Such a result is not reasonable and admires the purpose of the obligee. In addition, the result such as the above mentioned is more serious when the person concerned makes a special clause which obligor perform a shift after death of obligee. In Germany and Italy civil law the extra article which obligor perform a shift after death of obligee is stipulated. As for the such an extra case, KGB is not stipulated. So the article 541 must be revised at such a point. Conclusively as for Article 539 and Article 541, it must be revised as followings;Article 539 deletes Clause 2 conclusively and must establish only Clause 1. Therefore the third person acquire the right of the demand to perform to obligor directly without of the declaration of the accept. And as for article 541, the rights of change and abolish of the obligee is extinction by the death of obligee, so the heir of obligee could not change or abolish the right of the third person. 제3자를 위한 계약에 관하여 민법은 그 본질에서 동의론과 직접취득론의 서로 상반되는 법리를 규정(제539조)하여 그 해석에 혼란이 있고, 부득이 하게 동의론적 해석을 하는 것이 판례,다수설이다. 이러한 해석은 제541조와의 관계에서는 양 조문이 부조화를 이루며, 또한 제3자의 권리가 확정되기 전에 요약자가 사망하는 경우와 특약으로 요약자 사후 이행을 위한 계약을 한 경우에 제541조의 변경, 소멸권을 요약자의 상속인이 동 권리를 상속하여 행사할 수도 있다는 문제가 된다. 위와 같은 문제점으로 제539조와 제541조는 그 개정이 필요하다. 제539조는 법리에서 오늘날 결론이 난 직접취득론에 의하여 개정하여야 하고, 제541조는 제3자가 수익의 의사표시를 하지 않은 상태에서 요약자가 사망하는 경우에는 별도의 규정이 없이도 계약의 본질(직접취득론)과 요약자가 제3자를 위한 계약을 한 계약의 목적 등에 비추어 변경, 소멸권은 요약자의 사망으로 소멸하는 것이지 이를 상속인이 행사할 수는 없다는 독일 등의 판례, 학설에 따라 요약자의 사망으로 변경, 소멸권은 소멸한다는 규정을 신설하는 것이 합리적이다.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
