Enrichment 종류 및 개수 설정에 따른 육계 생산성, 혈액 특성, 발바닥 피부염, 깔짚 내 수분함량에 미치는 영향

김현수,김희진,전진주,손지선,윤연서,홍의철,강환구 한국가금학회 2022 韓國家禽學會誌 Vol.49 No.4

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of the type and number of enrichments on growth performance, blood characteristics, footpad dermatitis (FPD) incidence, and litter moisture in broilers. A total of 1,140 1-day-old male Ross 308 broilers were assigned to a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement based on the type of enrichment (cabbage, alfalfa block, and angle sawdust) and the number of enrichments (one or two per 38 broilers). The growth performance, blood characteristics, FPD incidence, and litter moisture of the broilers were evaluated. Body weight and feed conversion rate were significantly improved (P<0.05) in the alfalfa block and sawdust group compared to the cabbage group, but there was no interaction effect between the type and number of enrichments. The heterophil/lymphocyte ratio, a stress index, was significantly decreased (P<0.05) in the alfalfa block and sawdust groups compared with the cabbage group. The incidence of FPD was significantly decreased in the order of cabbage (3.78), alfalfa block (3.06), and sawdust (1.43) groups at 5 weeks of age. Moreover, there was a significant decrease in the incidence of FPD (P<0.05) in the one-enrichment group compared with the two-enrichment group. Litter moisture at 5 weeks of age was significantly reduced in the sawdust group compared to the cabbage and alfalfa groups, but there was no significant difference in the interaction between the type and number of enrichments. It was concluded that sawdust enrichment positively influenced both growth performance and the animal welfare of broilers. In addition, it is expected that sawdust can be used to regulate litter moisture. 본 연구는 육계 enrichment(놀이물질) 종류 및 개수에 따른 생산성, 혈액 성상, 발바닥 피부염 및 깔짚 내 수분함량 비교 시험을 수행하였다. 육계 초생추(1일령) 수컷 1,140수를 공시하여 enrichment 3종(양배추, 알팔파 블록 및 각톱밥)과 사육수수 대비 개수(38수당 1개 또는 2개)를 설정하여 3×2 요인 시험을 수행하였다. 체중 및 사료 섭취량은 시험개시일과 종료일(35일령) 측정하여 생산성을 조사하였다. 육계의 생리적 변화를 조사하기 위해 혈구를 분석하였으며, 발바닥피부염과 깔짚 내 수분 함량은 1, 3 및 5주령에 측정하였다. 체중 및 사료요구율은 알팔파 블록과 각톱밥 처리구가 양배추를 배치한 처리구에 비해 유의적으로 개선되었으나(P<0.05), enrichment 종류 및 개수 간의 상호작용 효과는 나타나지 않았다. 혈구 분석결과, 스트레스 지표인 HE/LY 비율이 알팔파 블록과 각톱밥 처리구에서 유의적으로 감소하였다(P<0.05). 5주령에 enrichment 종류에 따른 발바닥피부염 발생정도를 비교한 결과, 양배추(3.78), 알팔파 블록(3.06), 각톱밥(1.43) 처리구 순으로 유의적으로 감소하였으며(P<0.05), enrichment를 2개 보다 1개를 배치하였을 때 유의적으로 감소하였다(P<0.05). 5주령 깔짚 내 수분함량을 분석한 결과, 각톱밥(61.55%) 처리구에서 양배추(71.19%)와 알팔파 블록(69.50%) 처리구에 비해 유의적으로 감소하였으나(P<0.05), enrichment 종류 및 개수 간의 상호작용에는 유의적인 차이를 보이지 않았다. Enrichment로써 각톱밥 재질은 육계 사육기간 동안 생산성 및 동물복지를 향상시킬 뿐만 아니라 깔짚 수분조절제로써 활용될 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

EUROPEAN TRENDS IN THE LAW ON UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT - FROM THE GERMAN PERSPECTIVE

( Detlev W Belling ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2013 Korea University Law Review Vol.13 No.-

The striving for enrichment lies in the nature of human beings. It is legitimate to enrich oneself if an enrichment does not get out of control and violate the legal order. If the enrichment is unjustified, a statutory compensation code will apply. There is disagreement in Europe about the best way to reverse unjustified enrichments. The origins of unjustified enrichment law lie in Roman law: the Pandects contain in two places the statement by the Roman jurist Pomponius that according to the laws of nature, no one may enrich himself to the detriment of another. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Carl Friedrich von Savigny established a dogma of condictiones that was based on a unified definition of unjustified enrichment. In his view, the common feature, and at the same time the underlying principle of all condictiones, could be found in shifts in wealth without a legal basis. The German Civil Code contains a general provision: A person who obtains something as a result of the performance of another person or otherwise at his expense without legal basis for doing so is under a duty to make restitution to him. Immediately following this provision, individual cases are regulated in sections 812 (1) sentence 2 to 817 BGB, specifying particular forms which a lack of legal basis can take and describing their specific manifestations. Once the German Civil Code entered into force on 1 January 1900, in accordance with the conceptions of the legislators, it was agreed that the codification in section 812 (1) sentence 1 BGB contained a general unified rule governing unjustified enrichment. It was assumed that its alternatively formulated definition of unjustified enrichment as a result of the performance of another person or otherwise merely described the two conceivable enrichment procedures that would lead to a shift in wealth. Since the 1930``s, the voices critical of the legislative concept of unjustified enrichment law has grown in number. Their basic thesis is that a unified principle of reversal under unjustified enrichment law cannot be derived from the legislative concept underlying sections 812 et seq. BGB. A distinction was made between enrichment based on performance and enrichment by other means, which were essentially of a completely different character. The first independent group of condictiones was based on a specific use of the term performance (Leistung) under unjustified enrichment law. The term performance represents the conscious and goal-oriented increase of the assets of another. The condictiones by other means are to be attributed to the second category. Thus, even things that did not enter into the assets of another due to the intention of the performer, but which the other person obtained at the expense of another due to his action or other circumstances ? such as deprivation, use, consumption, processing, and disposition ? would also be actionable. First and foremost among the non-performance condictiones, which are not defined separately in the law, is the condictio of interference with another``s rights, which has as its subject matter the encroachment on an asset which is allocated to the enrichment-creditor by the legal system and thus is protected by law. The legal consequence of such encroachment is the restitution of the benefit the enrichment-debtor obtained through the interference. The focal point of the question of whether one will be allowed to retain assets or must return them is the legal basis for the enrichment, the causa, which determines whether the enrichment is justified. If a shift in wealth falls under the category of performance condictiones, it has no legal basis if it did not lead to the fulfilment of an obligation of the disadvantaged person. If the shift in wealth consisted of a removal, use, consumption, processing or disposition ? at the expense of another ? it has no legal basis if the enrichment-debtor has interfered with a legal position allocated to the owner, or the holder of another absolutely protected right, without being legally entitled to the benefit derived therefrom. The Principles of European Law (PEL) on unjustified enrichment law build on the concept of a unified basic rule. The authors of the PEL saw no compelling reason to distinguish between performance and interference condictiones. The basic rule contains four prerequisites and reads as follows: A person who obtains an unjustified enrichment which is attributable to another``s disadvantage is obliged to that other to reverse the enrichment. In the basic rule ? Art. 2:101 paragraph (1) ? an enrichment is generally presumed to be unjustified. Paragraph (1) (a) and (b) then sets out circumstances that justify an enrichment. An enrichment is justified pursuant to subparagraph (a) if the enriched person is entitled as against the disadvantaged person to the enrichment by virtue of a contract or other juridical act, a court order or a rule of law. Pursuant to paragraph (1) (b), an enrichment is also justified if the disadvantaged person consented freely and without error to the disadvantage.

집합건물 공용부분의 무단점유에 따른 부당이득의 성립 여부

박설아 사법발전재단 2020 사법 Vol.1 No.53

Article 741 of the Civil Act, in relation to unjust enrichment, prescribes that a person who “without any legal ground” derives a benefit from the property or services of another and thereby causes “loss” to the latter shall be bound to return such benefit. Examining whether unjust enrichment may be established with respect to the occupation without permission of real estate pursuant thereto, the precedents have taken a position that unjust enrichment equivalent to rent is established in regard to the occupation and use without permission of immovables. Meanwhile, with regard to the unauthorized occupation of the section for common use of condominium buildings, the existing precedents of the Supreme Court have determined that the section for common use of condominium buildings is not subject to the use or lease for other purposes such as stores structurally, and thus even if some of the sectional owners occupied or used the section without any legal ground, this cannot be seen to have caused damage such as the loss of profits equivalent to rent to other sectional owners unless there are special circumstances. Even in the case which becomes a subject of review of this article, whether the defendant, who is a sectional owner, occupying corridor and lobby, which are the sections for common use of commercial buildings, without permission and using these areas as the part of business place, is liable to return unjust enrichment became an issue, and the lower court, citing the existing precedents, denied the defendant’s obligation to return unjust enrichment. However, in a case where other sectional owners are prevented from using the said section as someone exclusively occupies and uses the section for common use of a condominium building even if whether damage has been caused is considered as a requirement for establishment of unjust enrichment in accordance with Article 741 of the Civil Act, damage is caused to other sectional owners in that their right to utilize the common area for its original purpose is infringed. In some cases, although the sectional owners may receive usage fee by allowing another person to exclusively use the said section for common use through resolution at a meeting, or regulations, of the managing body as part of the management or change of the section for common use, damage, depriving them of such opportunities, can also occurs. Nevertheless, there is also a view that damage equivalent to rent does not occur as the section for common use of condominium buildings is not subject to be used or rented for other purposes, but such view may be seen to misunderstand the legal principles regarding the establishment of unjust enrichment by infringement. In general, unjust enrichment corresponding to rent is admitted with regard to the occupation without permission of real estate. This is not because the said real estate is required to be available for rent, but because the profits obtained as an objective reward by reason of unauthorized use of real estate are deemed to be equivalent to rent. If the establishment of unjust enrichment is denied on the grounds that the section for common use is used for other purposes or not something to be leasable, this is quite the same as adding a new requirement, not stipulated by law, referred to as availability for rent to the claim for the restitution of unjust enrichment based on the occupation without permission of the corresponding real estate. The purpose of unjust enrichment system is to seek adjustment in financial conditions between a person lost and a person enriched through the restitution of the profit from a person enriched in the event of the movement of the property value contrary to the conception of justice and fairness. If the establishment of unjust enrichment is denied even though a person, who exclusively occupied and used the section for common use without justifiable grounds, took advantage thereof, and thus other sectional owners h... 우리 민법 제741조는 부당이득의 내용으로 ‘법률상 원인 없이’ 타인의 재산 또는 노무로 인하여 ‘이익’을 얻고 이로 인하여 타인에게 ‘손해’를 가한 자는 그 이익을 반환하여야 한다고 정하고 있다. 이에 따라 부동산의 무단점유에 대하여 부당이득의 성립을 검토하면서 우리 판례는 부동산의 무단점유·사용에 대하여 일반적으로 차임 상당의 부당이득이 성립한다고 보고 있다. 한편 집합건물 공용부분의 무단점유에 대하여 기존의 대법원 판례는 집합건물 공용부분이 구조상 점포로 사용하는 등 별개의 용도로 사용하거나 임대할 수 있는 대상이 아니므로 특별한 사정이 없는 한 구분소유자 중 일부가 아무런 권원 없이 이를 점유·사용하였더라도 다른 구분소유자에게 차임 상당의 이익을 상실하는 손해가 발생하였다고 볼 수 없다고 판단해 왔다. 본고의 검토대상이 된 사건에서도 상가건물의 공용부분인 복도와 로비를 무단으로 점유하여 영업장의 일부로 사용하고 있는 구분소유자인 피고에게 부당이득 반환의무가 있는지 여부가 쟁점이 되었고 원심판결은 기존 대법원 판례를 인용하여 피고의 부당이득반환의무를 부정하였다. 그런데, 민법 제741조에 따라 손해의 존재를 부당이득의 성립 요건으로 보더라도 누군가가 집합건물의 공용부분을 배타적으로 점유·사용하여 다른 구분소유자들의 사용을 막고 있는 경우 다른 구분소유자들에게는 그 공용부분을 용도대로 사용할 권리가 침해되었다는 손해가 발생한다. 경우에 따라서는 공용부분의 관리나 변경의 일환으로 관리단집회 결의나 관리단규약을 통하여 해당 공용부분을 타인에게 전용적으로 사용하게 하고 사용료를 받을 수 있는 기회가 박탈되는 손해가 발생하기도 한다. 그런데도 집합건물의 공용부분이 별개의 용도로 사용하거나 임대할 수 있는 대상이 아니므로 차임 상당의 손해가 발생하지 않는다고 보는 것은 침해부당이득의 성립에 관한 법리를 오해하였다고 볼 소지가 크다. 일반적으로 부동산의 무단점유에 대하여 차임 상당의 부당이득을 인정하는 것은 부동산의 무단사용에 따른 객관적 대가로서 그 사용이익을 차임 상당으로 의제하기 때문이지 해당 부동산이 임대가능할 것을 요건으로 하기 때문이 아니다. 별도의 용도로 사용하거나 임대할 수 있는 대상이 아님을 이유로 부당이득의 성립을 부정하는 것은 해당 부동산의 무단점유에 따른 부당이득반환청구에 대하여 임대가능성이라는 법률에서도 정하고 있지 않은 새로운 요건을 추가하는 것이나 다름없다. 부당이득제도의 목적은 정의와 공평의 관념에 위배되는 재산적 가치의 이동이 있는 경우 수익자로부터 그 이득을 되돌려 받아 손실자와의 사이에 재산상태의 조정을 꾀하려는 데 있다. 공용부분을 정당한 권원 없이 배타적으로 점유·사용한 자가 그로 인한 이익을 누렸고 다른 구분소유자들은 그 공용부분을 사용할 수 없게 되었는데도 부당이득의 성립을 부정한다면, 이는 공용부분을 배타적으로 사용한 자로 하여금 모든 이익을 보유하도록 하는 것으로서 부당이득반환제도의 취지인 공평의 이념에도 반한다. 이러한 점에서 볼 때 집합건물 공용부분의 무단점유에 따른 부당이득의 성립을 부정한 기존 대법원판결을 변경하고, 원고의 부당이득반환청구를 기각한 원심을 파기한 대상판결은 타당하다. 대상판결은 정당한 권원 없이 공용부분을 배타적으 ...

처분된 친일재산의 부당이득반환 - 대법원 2011. 6. 10. 선고, 2010다40239 판결 -

김지원 중앙법학회 2011 中央法學 Vol.13 No.4

Property owned by pro-Japanese and anti-national collaborators' descendents as pro-Japanese collaborators' property came to be nationalized by the state pursuant to the enforcement of "the Special Act on Asset Confiscation of Pro-Japanese and Anti-national Collaborators to the State." As the descendents sold the land to a bona-fide third party to avoid confiscation the state filed claims for the return of the land sale price as unjust enrichment against the descendents. In such precedents, the Supreme Court has held that the descendents shall return to the state the whole price from the land sale and in doing so, the amount of transfer income tax and the resident tax payment incurred by the disposal of the land should not be deducted from the gains which should be returned to the state. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court's judgment for the total return of unjust enrichment against the pro-Japanese collaborators' property is not clear with regards to the establishment of unjust enrichment and the applicable scope of the return. The Supreme Court uses the term of the restitution for wrongs while the basis of unjust enrichment lies in equity. It may be misunderstood as if the precedent used the term of the restitution for wrongs pursuant to the non-unification theory. The general elements for establishing unjust enrichment such as revenue, loss, causation, and "without juristic reason for the enrichment" can be applied from the perspective of the unification theory. Within this context, the meaning of "without juristic reason for the enrichment" is abstract, and thus, the restitution for wrongs can be applied by categorizing the types of unjust enrichment in detail. Further, the monetary value of the sale price, interest, and damages in the case of delayed payment should be considered as belonging to the scope of the return of unjust enrichment since the beneficiary acted in bad-faith.

지식재산권 관련 부당이득 분쟁에 대한 쟁점별 고찰

조경희,박규용 한국지식재산학회 2012 産業財産權 Vol.- No.38

There is no provision about the unjust enrichment in the intellectual property law. But the unjust enrichment principles in the Civil Law are also applicable to the intellectual property cases for balancing the unfairs in the property changes, when the intellectual property right is deemed as a person's property and when the person enriched gets any profit and it causes any damage to the intellectual property owner. This paper discusses the issues of the unjust enrichment on the intellectual property rights with the Civil Law principles. In other words, for the beginning it illustrates the principles of the Civil Law, and then it researches how the principles be applied to the intellectual property rights cases. Firstly, it considers the unjust enrichment with the classification(the giving unjust enrichment and the infringing unjust enrichment), and the usefulness of that. The usefulness is that there is no need to distinguish good or bad faith of the person enriched because the repayment amount under the giving unjust enrichment is already decided by its expressed legal relationship. While the repayment amount under the infringing unjust enrichment is different from the enriched person's good or bad faith. Secondly, it considers the burden proof of no legal ground with the classification again. There is no argument under the giving unjust enrichment that the plaintiff has the burden of proof. While there are arguments under the infringing unjust enrichment on the claims for reimbursement. The both reach a conclusion that the person enriched has the burden of proof. However, it inclines to the opinion that the no legal ground is deemed as the defendant counter-argument at the actual cases. Thirdly, with regard to the illustration problems between the article 201 and the article 748 about the repayment amount, it analyzes the legal nature of the fruits acquirement rights of a good faith person, the relationship between the fruits acquirement rights and the remaining enrichment. The result is that, when the invalid patentee deemed the registered patent as his rights and got the royalty through the license contract, the legal principles of fruits acquirement rights should be applied to such royalty. Fourthly, it analyzes the relationship between the tort claims for the damages and the unjust enrichment claims for the repayments. The related cases are almost about the infringing unjust enrichment. And the two claims coincide when the cases are on the proof of the deliberation(or the mistake) or on the extinctive prescription. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to distinguish the two claim's repayment because the claims for the unjust enrichment and the claims of tort are the same. Finally, in the conclusion of this paper, it gets the intellectual property cases into shape with the unjust enrichment principles of the Civil Law.

연구논문 : 미국 부당이득법 개관 - 제3차 부당이득법 리스테이트먼트를 중심으로 -

진도왕 ( Do Wang Jin ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2016 법학논총 Vol.40 No.1

영미법계에서는 부당이득의 반환을 내용으로 하는 일반적 법리가 독자적으로 발전되지는 않았다. 물론 영미법계에서도 대륙법계에서처럼 부당이득에 관한 구제수단이 마련되어 있었으나, 이는 부당이득반환의 일반적 법원리에 기초한 것이 아니라 개별적 사례마다 적용되기 위해 마련된 소권(訴權)에 따른 것이었다. 그러나 현대의 영미법계에서는 이러한 소권 기반의 사고방식을 약화시키고 부당이득 반환의 일반원리를 체계적으로 정립시키는 노력을 기울여 왔다. 특히 미국의 경우, 1937년 원상회복법에 관한 리스테이트먼트(Restatement of the Law of Restitution)를 통해 부당이득 제도의 일반적 법원리를 세우고자 하는 최초의 시도가 있었고, 이로부터 학계와 법원에서는 부당이득 제도에 관한 체계적인 연구들이 본격적으로 이루어져 그 이론적 근거들이 축적되기에 이르렀다. 2011년에 편찬된 원상회복과 부당이득법에 관한 리스테이트먼트 제3개정판(Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment)은 이러한 노력들이 반영된 결과물이라고 할 수 있다. 이에 반해 우리 부당이득법은 부당이득을 바라보는 통설적 입장, 즉 일반적 법원리로서 통일설이 많은 비판을 받아왔고, 이를 보완하기 위하여 유형론적 관점이 대세를 이루면서 전개되어 왔다. 이런 점에서 양 국가의 부당이득법의 전개는 하나의 점을 향해 가고 있는 것으로 보여지는데, 이는 일반적 법원리로서의 부당이득과 유형론적 관점에서의 부당이득의 절충점이라고 할 수 있다. 따라서 양국의 부당이득법을 비교연구하는 것은 부당이득법을 바라보는 두 시각, 즉 통일설과 유형설의 조화로운 해석과 적용, 그리고 보다 합리적인 부당이득제도의 운영을 꾀하는 데에 도움이 될 것이라고 생각한다. Unjust enrichment in the Anglo-American Law has not been developed as an independent legal principle. This does not mean that it did not identify a sort of remedy for unjust enrichment. According to the Roman law tradition, It used a general assumpsit to grant remedy that we would now classify as restitution. However, it was not an independent source of liability based on unjust enrichment, but quasi-contract or constructive trust. Since that, the modern Anglo-American Law has moved to establish unjust enrichment as an independent ground for judicial decision making like contract law and tort law, repudiating the traditional explanation of restitution liability. Especially, the US law of unjust enrichment has taken the lead in this movement by publishing the two Restatements which concern restitution and unjust enrichment. In 1937, the American Law Institute(“ALI”) published the Restatement (First)of the Law of Restitution which attempted to restate accumulated unjust enrichment cases based on the unified principle, combining the legal and equitable side of restitution. But it failed to make an independent principle for unjust enrichment because it included the preexisting law of quasi-contracts and of constructive trusts within the single Restatement. The Restatement (Third)of the Restitution and Unjust Enrichment of 2011 has received a favorable evaluation in respect of that it has shaped the contours of restitution and unjust enrichment, not only describing a principle of liability for unjust enrichment, but also organizing and classifying numerous cases in consistent ways. This article aims to provide an implication for the Korean law of unjust enrichment by looking into the US law of unjust enrichment, especially the Restatement (Third)of the Restitution and Unjust Enrichment.

不當利得의 體系

최윤석(Choi, Youn-Seok) 한국재산법학회 2014 재산법연구 Vol.31 No.1

우리 학계는 대법원과 함께 종전에 부당이득의 이론적 기초를 공평, 형평 내지 정의의 원칙을 기본으로 하는 통일론(공평설)으로 파악하였다. 현재 이러한 견해와 더불어 비통일론으로서 독일에서 발생한 분리론(유형론)이 등장하면서 유력한 이론으로서 한국의 민법학계에 자리를 잡고 있는 상태다. 우리의 분리론의 주된 논거는 부당이득의 이론적 기초가 통일적으로 설명되지 않는 한계점을 지적하면서 다양한 부당이득의 유형이 존재하며, 이들은 각각의 상이한 기초사상을 갖고 있고, 나아가 "법률상 원인 없이"의 의미도 부당이득의 유형에 따라 다르게 판단되어야 한다는 점이다. 이러한 우리의 분리론은 독일의 분리론의 강한 영향을 받았는데, 독일 부당이득법이 제정된 이후에 새롭게 나타난 독일의 분리론은 독일민법 제812조 제1항 1문이 급부와 그 밖의 방법으로 구분된 부당이득의 유형을 규정하고 있는 이상, 각각의 부당이득 유형은 고유의 구성요건을 필요로 하고 있으며, 특히 각각의 독자적인 기본 사상을 지향한다는 점을 중심으로 한다. 따라서 이러한 분리론과 관련된 실정법상의 근거가 발견되지 않는 우리 민법 제741조로부터 어떻게 분리론을 설명할 수 있는가 하는 의문이 발생한다. 나아가 독일의 분리론 자체도 독일 부당이득법 제정과정을 자세히 검토해 보면 독일민법 입법자가 형평의 원칙하에 부당이득법을 제정한 의도에 맞지 않는 이론으로서, 로마법 이래로 변함없이 형평의 원리하에 계속적으로 발전 및 전승되어온 부당이득 고유의 개념을 혼란스럽게 하는 문제를 야기하고 있다. 따라서 본고에서는 부당이득의 체계와 관련하여 로마법상의 condictio로부터 시작하는 부당이득제도가 다양한 부당이득의 유형을 인정하고 있으며, 또한 형평의 원칙에 연유하고 있다는 점을 근거로 통일론의 입장을 법역사적 해석방법을 통해 논증하고 우리 부당이득법의 개념, 본질 및 체계를 규명하고자 한다. The condictio whose name dates back to legis actio per condictionem is a strictly legal action against individual for certam pecuniam dari or dari aliam certam rem. It provides a uniform action with a single form for certain sum of money or specific things and contains condictio indebiti, condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam, condictio ob causam datorum, condictio causa data causa non secuta and condictio furtiva. It does not base on the tort law, but derived from the naturalis aequitas. The naturalis aequitas is the equity rule, which is developed by the Greek philosophy, Pomp. D. 12,6,14 : Nam hoc natura aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento fieri locupletiorem. In Roman law, the action to reclaim enrichment obtained by performance (Leistungskondiktion) was of primary importance and the Roman jurists regarded it as the basic form of condictio. It is noteworthy that they knew the condictio furtiva as a specific action to reclaim enrichment obtained by interference with private property (einzelne Eingriffskondiktion), otherwise a general action to reclaim enrichment obtained by interference with private property (allgemeine Eingriffskondiktion) in German modern sense. Despite the dissolution of the classical condictio in a group of independent right of claims in the Justinian law, the equity rule was maintained as the basis of condictiones. In the 19th century, Friedrich Carl von Savigny established the theory of condictio, which assumes that the condictio is due to a common principle and that the uniform fact of the enrichment can be seen in "causeless enrichment of others from our properties (grundlose Bereicherung des Andern aus unsrem Vermögen)". This is the starting point of the theory of unity. Franz Philipp von Kübel wrote with a faithful image of the Roman legal specific condictiones (Spezialkondiktionen) the partial draft of the law of unjust enrichment of the German Civil Code. He saw the basis of law of unjust enrichment in the shifting of properties under the influence of the theory of Savigny. The first draft accepted Kübel's basic concept. Kübel and 1st Commission opposed the cases of enrichment through willful performance to enrichment without the will of the disadvantaged person. However, the Editorial Committee of the 2nd Commission abandoned the system of specific condictiones of Roman law and established a general clause by taking consideration of simplicity and clarity of the 2nd draft. Although it adhered strictly to the uniform basic principle of naturalis aequitas and focused on the shifting of properties. According to the theory of separation, which was developed by Walter Wilburg and Ernst von Caemmerer, the various condictiones do not go back to a uniform principle. Unlike the Leistungskondiktion, in the case of Eingriffskondiktion as a mainly applicated case of action to reclaim enrichment obtained by non-performance (Nichtleistungskondiktion) it depends on the wrongful act (widerrechtliche Handlung), the interference (Eingriff) with assigned content (Zuweisungsgehalt). But to the contrary, the historical development until the 19th century as well as the legislative materials on the German Civil Code demonstrate that the legislator has written on the German Civil Code under a uniform dogmatic principle of the rules on unjust enrichment. The German legislator neither intended to regulate the Leistungskondiktion and Nichtleistungskondiktion on different bases nor to determine their facts dissimilarly. The rules relating to unjust enrichment in the Korean Civil Code and their interpretation are affected by the doctrines of German law, which has a strong influence on the Korean civil law. This article aims to explore the nature and system of the Korean law on unjust enrichment specifically concerning historical development, beginning from Roman law, and legislative process of the German Civil Code.

The Effect of Work-Family Culture on Bidirectional Work-Family Enrichment : Focused on Mediating Effect of Work-Engagement

Zhang Li Jun,장효용,Li Wen Ning 원광대학교 한중관계연구원 2019 韓中關係硏究 Vol.5 No.2

본 연구의 목적은 일-가정문화가 쌍방향 일-가정 충실에 미치는 영향을 연구하고, 일-가정문화와 쌍방향 일-가정 충실 간의 일-몰입의 매개효과를 검증한다. 본 연구는 중국 일반 직원에 대한 설문조사를 통해 유효한 설문지 380부를 수집한다. 주로 SPSS23.0과 AMOS23.0 소프트웨어를 사용하여 데이터를 검증적 인자 분석과 탐색적 인자 분석을 수행하였다. 기존의 일-가정 관계에 관한 연구는 일-가정 충돌과 같은 부 정적인 방향으로 집중되었다. 본 연구는 일-가정 충실에 대한 연구 대상으로서 긍정적 인 결과에 대한 연구를 풍부하게 하여, 기존의 연구의 부족을 보완하였다. 선행연구는 주로 일에 대한 가정의 충실 방향에 집중되어 있는데 가정에 대한 일의 충실 방향을 등한하였다. 본 연구는 일-가정 문화와 쌍방향 일-가정 충실을 연구 대상으로 하여 선 행연구 부족한 점을 보완하였다. 연구를 통해 일-가정 문화가 쌍방향 일-가정 충실에 모두 현저한 영향을 미친다는 것을 발견했다; 일-몰입은 일-가정 문화와 쌍방향 일-가 정 충실사이에서 중개 역할을 한다. 대다수 중국 기업에 대해 긍정적인 견지에서 일-가 정문화로써 근로자의 일-가정 충실의 메커니즘과 직원의 개인별 차이를 기초로 직원의 일-가정 충실을 위해 효과적인 촉진 대책을 제공하였다. This study aims to explore the influence of work-family culture on the bidirectional work-family enrichment, so as to verify the mediating role of work-engagement between work-family culture and bidirectional work-family enrichment. In this study, 380 valid questionnaires were collected through questionnaire survey on ordinary Chinese employees. Statistical software SPSS 23.0 and AMOS 23.0 were used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Previous studies on work-family relationship mainly focus on negative aspects such as work-family conflict. This study takes work-family enrichment as the research object, which enriches the research on positive results and makes up the deficiency of previous studies. In the past, the research mainly focused on the direction of work-to-family enrichment and ignored the direction of family-to-work enrichment. This study takes work-family culture and bidirectional work-family enrichment as research objects, which makes up for the deficiency of previous studies. The results show that work-family culture has a significant effect on the bidirectional work-family enrichment; Work-engagement mediates between work-family culture and bidirectional work-family enrichment. For most Chinese companies, from a positive perspective and on basis of the mechanism of work-family culture applied to employee’s work-family enrichment and the individual differences of the employees, it provides effective promotion measures for achieving the employee’s work-family enrichment.

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

미국 부당이득법의 개관

이상용 한국민사법학회 2016 民事法學 Vol.75 No.-

We see a worldwide trend of legal harmonization these days, especially increased influence of Anglo-American law. This is also true with the law of restitution and unjust enrichment, the complexity and indistinctness of which has long prevented comparative study in this area. But the publication of “Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment” in 2011 helped ease the problem. This article aims to review American law of restitution and unjust enrichment focusing on this Restitution and conduct basic comparative study between Korean and American legal systems in this area. The Restatement comprises 4 part and 70 articles. Each part deals with introduction, liability in restitution, remedies and major defenses. Firstly, liability in restitution is categorized into 5 groups: transfer subject to avoidance, unrequested intervention, restitution and contract, restitution for wrongs, and benefits conferred by a third person. Remedies are classified into 2 groups, which are restitution in money and specific restitution. Restitution in money is determined by the amount of enrichment, which differs with the existence and degree of fault on the part of the recipient, who can be innocent, misconducting, or responsible for the enrichment. In particular, the recipient who has committed conscious wrongdoing which is the gravest form of misconduct, are subject to the liability to disgorge profits which include consequential gains and are not limited to his loss. Specific restitution means the rights in rem acknowledged within the limits of restitution in money and includes such remedies as rescission and restitution, constructive trust, equitable lien, and subrogation. Major defenses include recipient not unjustly enriched, equitable disqualification, change of position, bona fide purchaser and payee and limitation of actions and laches. Those topics that could result in productive comparison between Korean and Amaerian law of restitution and unjust enrichment can be classified into such groups as system and structure, requirements and effects of the liability, and protection of third party. Regarding system and structure, comparison might be conducted with regards to the relation between the law of restitution and other areas like contracts or torts. The issue of classification of unjust enrichment could also be considered in this context. With regards to the requirements of the liability, we need to compare the meaning of unjustness and the concept of benefit and enrichment. Especially, it is important to examine the opposing idea of ‘unjustified enrichment’ and ‘the equitable concept.’ Concerning the effects of the liability, those issues like substitution and transfer of the object, restitution of the “Gewinn”, limitation of the liability to the remaining benefit for the good faith recipient could each be compared to constructive trust, disgorgement, defense of change of position in American law. On the whole, even though American law of restitution and unjust enrichment is very different from that of Korea, the function is very similar with each other. However, there are disparities indeed that cannot be ignored, some of which suggest valuable ideas that can help interpretation and revision of Korean law of unjust enrichment.