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 : 加藤雅信(Kato, Masanobu) (검색결과 3 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
加藤雅信(Kato, Masanobu),김상수(Kim, Sang Soo) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2018 서강법률논총 Vol.7 No.1
일본에서는 최근 채권법개정이 국회를 통과하였다. 이번 개정은 10년 정도의 시간이 걸리며 이루어진 것인데, 그 개정과정에서는 많은 비판이 제기되고, 입법을 추진한 법무성의 의도와는 다른 개정이 되었다. 그러한 비판의 선두에 선건 이 논문의 저자이기도 한 일본의 저명 민법학자인 가또 마사노부(加藤雅信)교수이다. 가또 교수는 처음에는 법무성과 협력하면서 후반에는 법무성과 대립하면서 채권법개정 문제에 관여하였다. 그 채권법개정 과정을 이면에서 벌어진 일도 가미하며 리뷰하는 것이 이 연구의 주된 목적이기도 하다. 일본의 민법개정과정을 보면서 민법의 개정은 어떻게 하는 것이 좋은지 타산지석이 될 수 있을 것이다. 이번 일본의 민법개정은 결국 당초 의도되었던 법무성의 개정목적인 대목표에 한정하면 거의 완전히 사라져 버렸다. 법률의 성립이라는 최종국면은 추진파에게 있어 달성감에 젖어 있어야 할 장면인데 누구와 얘기하여도 그 달성감을 느낀 일이 없다. 물론 법안불성립으로 끝나지 않았음을 다행이라고 여기는 입장도 있다고 보는데, 그래도 해피하다고 하기 보다는 당초의 목표를 달성하지 못하고 겨우 체면을 지켰다는 의미라고 추측된다. 실로 쓸쓸한 법의 성립이었다. 국민에게 있어서도 상실만이었던 10년이 되었지만, 이 불행한 경험이 무엇보다도 앞으로의 행정과 정치를 담당하는 분들에게 타산지석으로서의 의미를 가짐을 지금은 바랄 뿐이다. 민법 제정 후 오랜 시간이 경과된 후의 민법대개정은 민법제정에 버금가는 매우 어려운 작업이 될 것이다. 일본에서의 민법대개정은 결국 시작단계와는 달리 많은 시간과 노력이 투입되었음에도 소개정으로 끝났다. 어떻게 개정하는 것이 좋은지, 이것은 모든 법개정에 적용되는 일이지만, 시민생활의 기본인 민법의 개정은 그만큼 어려운 일이 아닐 수 없다. 이 글을 통해 민법(특히 재산관계)을 어떻게 개정해야 할지, 외국법을 어떻게 받아들여야 할지, 일본의 민법개정 과정을 보며 우리에게 좋은 방법은 무엇인지 생각할 수 있게 되었다면 다행이다. Recently an amendment of civil code passed the Diet in Japan. This amendment spent time of 10 years, and much criticism was raised by its process. An aim of the Ministry of Justice which promoted legislation consequently was a different amendment. It"s Kato of a famous civil law scholar that it was in the van of such criticism. Prof. Kato concerned a civil code amendment while opposing oneself to the Ministry of Justice later while cooperating with the Ministry of Justice at the beginning. There is a purpose in the case that this study reviews this civil code amendment. How to do the change by touching the process of the civil code amendment would be reference. An amendment in this civil code couldn`t achieve the goal the Ministry of Justice intended first. The amendment which couldn"t achieve the first goal is the deserted one no one can meet. Only loss is also the amendment left for the Japanese country. This unfortunate experience has to be reference valuable for the person who will take charge of administration and politics now. That a large scale amendment in a civil code is very difficult work like establishing a civil code. A Japanese civil code amendment didn"t succeed though it spent long time. Everyone would find out that it`s very difficult to revise a civil code. I expect that this study becomes reference in a problem of how whether to revise like the civil code throat should refer to that case`s foreign law.
-
부당이득의 유형론에서 법체계투영이론으로 - 부당이득연구에서 법인류학연구로의 사적 회상
加藤雅信(Masanobu Kato),김상수(Sang-Soo Kim),맹관섭(GwanSeop-Maeng) 한국비교사법학회 2007 比較私法 Vol.14 No.2
Ⅰ. Introduction<BR> This paper focuses on three themes: a new theory of the Law of Unjust Enrichment, a legal anthropological study of the social structure of the origin of the notion of ownership, and an international comparison of contract consciousness. These have been the main subjects of my academic life for almost 40 years. In a sense, this paper is my academic memoir as I have changed my home institution from Nagoya to Sophia University and also am going to start my new job as a practitioner. <BR> Ⅱ. The Law of Unjust Enrichment<BR> When I started my study of the Law of Unjust Enrichment after graduating from Tokyo University, there were two main streams in this field in the civil law countries, an equity doctrine and a typology of the Law of Unjust Enrichment. As the contents of the Law of Unjust Enrichment werevery vague, no scholars could have made the substance of the Law of Unjust Enrichment clear based on a concrete concept. Thus, some scholars tried to explain the substance of the law with the vague notion of equity, and some scholars abandoned the idea of giving a solid base to the Law of Unjust Enrichment, instead, tryingto give a typological framework.<BR> However, the author reached a quite differentidea concerning the substance of the Law of Unjust Enrichment, after a careful analysis of all judicial precedents that had been made public after the legislation of the Japanese Civil Code. This new theory is called the “mirror theory," or the “project theory" of the complete system of law. In a situation where party A has transferreda property or good based on a contract to party B, and a contract is found to be invalid, party A can claim to return the property or good to B based on the law of unjust enrichment. The same structure can be found when a legal relation is invalid or inexistent in the generalscope of the Civil Code, the Law of Property, the Law of Obligation, the Family Law or the Law of Inheritance. Thus, invalidity or inexistence of legal relations in all five books of the civil code produces a claim of unjust enrichment. In addition to Civil Code legal relations, the same structure can be expanded to when a legal relation in the Commercial Code, administrative laws and other laws which relate to the transfer of property or good is invalid or inexistent. (For example, when cases in which a fine paid based on a provision in the Criminal Code, or property is transferred based on an execution provision in the Civil Execution Act, lack legal bases, a claim of unjust enrichment appears.)<BR> Usually, a property or good is transferred based on a valid legal relationship. In such a case, the Law of Unjust Enrichment does not work. In a case when a legal relation is invalid or inexistent, the Law of Unjust Enrichment works. A valid legal relation can be found in various fields of laws thatform a complete system of law. The Law of Unjust Enrichment is a mirror or projection of this complete system of law, when a legal relation in this complete system of law is invalid or inexistent.<BR> Ⅲ. How did the notion of ownership appear in the world?<BR> Even a child knows the word ownership. It is a fundamental concept in jurisprudence and in societies. However, no lawyers but legal philosophers discuss the intrinsic qualities of “ownership". This paper tries to interpret the nature of ownership from the viewpoint not of legal philosophy, but from a positive analysis based on legal anthropology.<BR> Historically, the most important ownership is that of land. However, people in hunt-and-gathering and nomadic societies do not know the notion of land ownership. Only people in farming societies have this notion. In addition, in a slash-and-burn society private land ownership is rare, and in extended families’ or villagers’ collective land ownership is common. Why do such differences appear?<BR> &nb
-
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
