http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
趙明來 건국대학교 1986 論文集 Vol.22 No.1
Nowadays many people lacking in their own houses generally hold the other's by lease to take up their residence. Most of them can hardly stand in competition with the third person by dint only of their rights on account that they have no other choice but depending upon contact. In consequence, they are frequently compelled to suffer damage beyond their disposal. Accordingly, it is required that the fragile lessee should be protected from being taken unfair dealing to. Our government enacted 「on the Protection of leaseing a Dwelling House」. I will analyze and investigate the problems hereat and furthermore suggest a better plan by which I wish the intention of Housinglease Protection Law could be fulfilled. I studied the improvements of this law here. I. Although this law is applied to the lease of the combination using for shnp and residence, I think its application should be expanded to the poor merchants, leasehold business buildings or offices. II. This law allows a lessee the Power of Antaganism when he occupy the leasehold houses and register his residence. But the vacuum is left between the occupancy of it and the resident registration. So I think a lessee should be allowed the Power of Antaganism as soon as he occupy it. III. The government should introduce the Permanent Lease House which is prevalent in Europe and support the building company which largely construct the Permanent Lease House or Apartment.
趙明來 건국대학교 사회정책연구소 2002 사회과학연구 Vol.15 No.-
The central theory in the law of realty is the fluctuating theory of a real right, and the act theory of a real right can be its core subject. But these days there have been many different kinds of doctrines and legislation attitudes on act theories encircling the act of a real right both internally and externally, and heated arguments have sometimes developed according to its fields. At present, the Important issues related to it being under discussion in the academic world are as follows. Firstly, the constituent of it is concerned in them. Secondly, the time of it, whether the expectation theory of reality in connection with the time is useful or not, and the protection of an unregistered real property acquisitor are involved. Thirdly, it is about the relationship between the act of a real right and that of an obligatory right. I try not only to summarize and adjust the established studies on those issues and to reproduce more reasonable and practical interpretations from them in this thesis. To begin with, I consider mutual agreement to be a constituent of the act of a real right, as it were, the act of a real right, can be formed only by mutual agreement. On the other hand I can't accept registration and delivery are components. Some views recognize the public announcement method such as registration and delivery as parts of the act of a real right. But they must be separated from each other in order to acknowledge an expectation right of reality on the assumption that a theory of an expectation right of reality is useful. I make my position clear in the affirmative theory of originality on the second issue that is the discussion of the time of it, namely, whether the originality of a real right can be admitted or not. Since the affirmative theory is superior to the negative one theoretically as well as it can lead to reasonable results in practical ways. I believe the buyer's registration claim of real property must not be discharged because of prescription from assuming that the acquisitor of unregistered real property should be protected. As I admit individuality of a real right and the registration right results from a real right. A judicial precedent about this considers the registration claim to be the obligatory one, at the same time, it shows that the buyer's registration claim is not discharged owing to prescription when the buyer uses the object after being delivered, and the case is different from others. It is too excessive leap in argument thinking possession of the object as an exercise of the registration claim without any ground. To prove both debates won't have good effect under the present civil law I try to show new interpretations concerning the protection provisions, the provision of confirmation on unavailable acts, the provision of confirmation on the law court. As a result I find out an alternative plan that the debate on them can be finished by using articles on the confirmation system, the confirmation of unavailable acts.