상가건물의 권리금에 관한 연구 = A Study on the Foregift of Business Building

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Regarding the relationship of the merchant's lease, in addition to the relationships of landlord and tenant, tents and prior tenants, and the rent deposit among the tenants and others, the reality is that there are many incidents where money is being given and received as nominal Foregift. However as seen from the tragedy case in Yongsan, in some cases, the amount of the Foregift is as much as several hundreds of millions of won and from the evidence that there are numerous cases of disputes regarding the Foregift during lease disputes, it can be concluded that there must be laws regulating the Foregift unlike the western countries where they have the freedom of contract and the government leaves it to the tenants and landlords. By suggesting to improve the
cases based on the business building lease protection act, as the Foregift is referred by the precedent first, the Foregift is defined through dividing them into facilities Foregift, places Foregift, and sales Foregift. And in order for the merchants to recover the costs of their investments in such as the Foregift, make the claim reimbursement of expenses a mandatory provision, do not allow the landlord to decline without good reasons in case of transfer of the lease, and if there is a declination, then they must follow the directions of the court, and make it so the duration of the contract must be at least 1 year and the maximum period of contract renewal requirement must be 7 years. These are some of the suggested improvements in the business building lease protection act. These assertions (especially, the part where they must be reimbursed for the
Foregift they didn't even paid for) could be viewed as being defending only the merchant, the lease holder's point of view but in western countries (England and France), are already compensating and as a nation, they have the responsibility to promote the commercial activities of the merchant. Additionally, although the
merchant is active for his commercial reasons, these business activities of the merchants have contributed greatly to the national economy so when all these things are comprehensively considered, this is more than fair for each others. Therefore, by no means, this is too much for the leaseholder.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 序論
• Ⅱ. 權利金의 槪念定立
• Ⅲ. 우리法制에서의 權利金 保護規定과 問題點
• Ⅳ. 權利金 保護를 위한 改善方案
• Ⅴ. 結論

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 곽윤직, "채권각론" 박영사 2009

2 김상용, "채권각론" 법문사 2006

3 이은영, "채권각론" 박영사 2005

4 윤철홍, "채권각론" 법영사 2009

5 하양명, "임차권의 승계에 따른 권리금의 지급실태 - 상가의 실태조사를 중심으로-" 7 : 1980

6 김영일, "임대차에 있어서 권리금을 둘러싼 제문제" 32 : 1986

7 김기진, "영업용 건물의 임대차에 수반하여 지급된 권리금에 관한 판례비평 : 대상판결 : 가. 대판 2000.9.22. 2000다26326, 나. 대판 2001.4.10. 2000다59050, 다.대판 2002.7.26. 2002다25013" 14 (14): 2006

8 장세훈, "영세상가 임대차보호의 실태와 입법 방향" (2) : 2001

9 정찬형, "상법개론" 법영사 2009

10 국회법제사법위원회, "상가등임대차보호관련법안에관한공청회, 팜플렛(국회도서관 등록번호:제1000010254번), (2001.8.28)"

11 원상철, "상가건물임차권의 보호문제" 한국경영교육학회 (44) : 225-244, 2006

12 정수경, "상가건물임대차보호법의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구" 부산대학교 대학원 2009

13 최진이, "상가건물임대차보호법의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 고찰" 한국기업법학회 19 (19): 293-322, 2005

14 윤철홍, "상가건물임대차보호법의 문제점" 9 (9): 2002

15 김남근, "상가건물임대차보호법의 개선방향에 대하여" (108) : 2003

16 박현옥, "상가건물임대차보호법상의 임차인보호" 24 : 2009

17 소재선, "상가건물임대차법" 경희대학교 출판국 2005

18 임윤수, "상가건물 임차인의 권리금에 관한 연구" 한국법학회 (22) : 191-210, 2006

19 배병일, "상가건물 임대차의 권리금" 한국민사법학회 (26) : 143-169, 2004

20 김만웅, "권리금 통제를 위한 상가임대차 보호법의 개선방안" 한국토지법학회 20 : 93-114, 2004

21 민일영, "권리금" 15 (15): 1997

22 법무부 법무실, "각국의 영업용건물 임대차 법제" 법무부 1996

23 金亨洙, "商街建物의 賃貸借保護劑度" 한국토지법학회 (19) : 247-255, 2003

24 중소기업청, "2008년 상가건물 임대차 실태조사 결과"

25 중소기업청, "2004년도 상가건물임대차실태조사 및 제도개선방안 연구"