점유취득시효와 등기

김대규(Kim Dae-Kyoo),전준종(Jeon Jun-Jong) 한국법학회 2006 법학연구 Vol.21 No.-

In this thesis, concerning acquisitive prescription of possession right of real property if our civil law, It was observed carefully the significance of the system of acquisitive prescription, reason of existence, legislative process and some problems, and history and comparable consideration about this system, and it was considered a theory and a judicial precedent relating interpretation of Article 245 in our civil law. As a result, as acquisitive prescription system of possession right of real property takes unique stipulation comparing with foreign laws, it is required to do independent judgment in application with right interpretation of the stipulation, but there are lots of portions which need more study and consideration in this field. Hope that this thesis would be helpful to the academic and administrative work field by suggesting reasonable interpretation for our civil law. and I sincerely felt a lack of ability and desire to work was ahead. Wish to be helpful further study and consideration in this field.

퍼지이론을 이용한 중요 문장 선정 기법

김대규(Kim Dae Kyoo),심규성(Sim Kyu Sung),권순재(Kwon Soon Jae),박종석(Park Jong Seok) 한국정보과학회 2016 한국정보과학회 학술발표논문집 Vol.2016 No.12

부당이득 반환범위에 관한 소고

김대규(Kim, Dae-Kyoo),황충현(Hwang, Choong-Hyun) 한국법학회 2014 법학연구 Vol.56 No.-

부당이득이라고 하면 법률상 원인 없이 타인의 재산 또는 노무로 인하여 이익을 얻고 이로 인하여 타인에게 손해를 가한 자에게 그 이익을 반환하는 것을 말한다. 즉, 타인의 손실로 인하여 얻어진 부당한 수익자의 자산증가를 손실자에게 회복시켜주므로 해서 손실이전으로 회복시키는 역할을 하는 것인데 실제에 있어서 그 반환의 범위를 정한다는 것은 그리 쉬운 일은 아니다. 부당이득반환에 있어 운용이익의 반환범위에 관하여 우리 민법에서의 통설과 판례의 태도는 부당이득반환의무자가 법률행위를 통하여 얻은 운영이익에 대해서는 손실자의 손해의 범위 내에서만 반환을 인정하고 있다. 판례에 의하면 수익자가 자신의 노력 등으로 부당이득한 재산을 이용하여 남긴 이른바 운용이익도 그것이 사회통념상 수익자의 범위가 개입되지 아니하였더라도 부당이득된 재산으로부터 손실자가 당연히 취득하였으리라고 생각되는 범위내의 것이 아닌 한 수익자가 반환하여야 할 이득의 범위 내에서 공개되어야 한다고 판시하고 있어 일부반환설을 취하고 있다. 그런데 본래 운용이익이란 수익자가 본래 받은 이익에 수익자 자신의 특별한 투자능력 또는 수완을 발휘하여 얻은 이익을 의미하는 것이므로 부당이득된 재산으로부터 손실자가 당연히 취득하였으리라고 생각되는 이익의 범위내의 것은 운용이익이지만 공제의 대상이 되는 것이 아니라 이는 운용이익에 포함되지 않는다고 보아야 한다. 대상판결은 부당이득반환의 경우 수익자가 반환해야할 이득의 범위를 손실자가 입은 손해의 범위로 한정하고, 손실자의 손해는 사회통념상 손실자가 당해 재산으로부터 통상 수익할 수 있을 것으로 예상되는 이익 상당이라고 하면서, 운용이익이라 하더라도 사회통념상 수익자의 행위가 개입되지 아니하였더라도 부당이득된 재산으로부터 손실자가 통상 취득하였으리라고 생각되는 범위 내에서는 반환해야할 이득의 범위내에 포함된다고 판시하고 있다. 대상판결은 이자를 운용이익으로 보고 있다. 물론 모든 이자를 전부 법정과실로 볼 수는 없을 것이다. 만약에 수익자가 특별한 노력과 비용, 수완 등을 발휘하여 일반인 특히 손실자가 얻을 수 없는 많은 이율의 이자를 이득하였다면 그 초과 부분은 운용이익으로 보아야 할 것이다. 그러나 판례가 판시하고 있는 것과 같이 사회통념상 수익자의 행위가 개입되지 아니하였더라도 손실자가 통상 취득하였으리라고 생각되는 범위내의 이자는 법정과실로 보아야 하지 않는가 생각되어진다. Unjust enrichment relates to obtaining profits from someone else’s property or labor without a lawful cause at that person’s loss and requiring such profits be returned to such person. Under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, any person who had his asset enriched at someone else’s loss is obliged to disgorge such enrichment to the person sustaining the loss, reinstating the loss sufferer’s financial status to what was before such loss. In reality, however, it is not an easy task to define the scope of return. With respect to the scope of operational profit to be returned in the context of unjust enrichment, the prevailing private law theory and court rulings maintain the same view that the enriched must return the operational profit obtained through a legal act only to the extent of the damage sustained by the loss sufferer. The court rulings takes a position, known as the doctrine of partial restitution, that operational profit earned by the enriched by applying his efforts to the unjustly taken property should be excluded from the scope of the enrichment to be returned unless the loss sufferer would have earned such profit from the property alienated by unjust enrichment if there had been no intervention of the enriched. However, the term operational profit means any increment of value to his legitimate profit that was added as a result of utilizing his unique investment capability or strategies. That said, the profit that the loss suffer could have earned from the property subject to unjust enrichment is not so much something to be excluded from the operational profit as something that cannot be defined as operational profit. The court ruling concerned in this Article limits the returnable profit to the damage sustained by the loss sufferer and then, defining the damage to the loss sufferer as value equivalent to the profit that could be ordinarily earned by the loss sufferer from the property concerned, in the common notion of the society. Thus, even though viewed as operational profit, it must be included in the returnable enrichment, but only to the extent that could have been earned by the loss sufferer from the property subject to unjust enrichment had it not been for intervention of the enriched person’s act, according to the court. The judgment concerned views interest as operational profit. Certainly, it is difficult to conceive all the interest as statutory proceeds. If the enriched, by utilizing his own special efforts, cost and resources, has earned interest at a rate that the loss sufferer could in no way have earned, such excessive portion should be treated as operational profit. However, such interest that belongs to the scope that the loss sufferer may have ordinarily obtained even without the intervention of the act of the enriched appears to constitute statutory proceeds, just as reasoned in the court rulings.

점유취득시효완성의 효과

김대규(Kim, Dae-kyoo),송명(Song Myoung) 한국법학회 2013 법학연구 Vol.50 No.-

우리 민법은 형식주의를 취하고 있으면서도 등기부 취득시효와 동등하게 점유취득시효를 인정하고 있고, 점유취득시효를 인정하면서도 의사주의를 취하고 있는 국가의 민법과 달리 그 요건으로서 등기를 요구하고 있어 많은 문제점이 야기되고 있다. 따라서, 본 논문은 우리 민법이 형식주의를 취하고 있으면서 등기부 취득시효와 동등하게 점유취득시효를 인정하고 있는 것, 우리민법의 점유취득시효 제도가 개정 내지 폐지되기 전까지 어떻게 해석해야 할 것인가에 대하여 판례를 중심으로 하여 고찰해 보았다. 그 결과 점유취득시효제도를 원칙적으로 폐지하든지 아니면 판례 제5원칙은 취득시효완성자의 보호를 중심으로 하고 있는데 형식주의를 취하고 있는 우리 민법하에서는 원소유자로부터 권리를 취득한 자를 보호하는 방향으로 변경되어야 할 것이다. 아울러 취득시효완성자의 소유권 취득의 법적성질을 판례는 원시취득으로 보면서도 취득시효완성 전에 제한물권을 취득한 자의 권리는 취득시효 완성자가 등기를 마치면 소멸한다고 보면서 취득시효완성 후에 제한물권을 취득한 자의 권리는 소멸하지 않는다는 판단은 타당하지 않다고 본다. 결국 승계취득으로 보아 제한물권을 취득한 자를 보호할 필요가 있으며 만약 원시취득으로 본다면 취득시효완성 전ㆍ후를 불문하고 취득시효완성으로 인한 소유권 취득 등기와 동시에 모든 제한물권은 소멸된다고 판시하여야 할 것이다. Our Civil Law takes “Erklrungstheorie(Formalism)” and equally admits the prescription by registration and the occupancy prescription alike. Unlike other countries Civil Law that takes “Willenstheorie” and admits the occupancy prescription, it also requires registration as the qualification of the occupancy prescription. Because of this reason, many problems are caused. So, this study aims at how this system will be translated until the occupancy prescription in our Civil Law is amended or abolished after searching for the fact that Our Civil Law takes “Erklrungstheorie(Formalism)” and equally admits both the prescription by registration and the occupancy prescription and analyzing the validity of requiring registration as the qualification of the occupancy prescription. The Research method used in this study is to inquire into case laws. As a result, this study finds out the followings: Either the occupancy prescription system should be abolished or the precedent of the 5th principle that focuses on the protection of the consummator of the acquisitive prescription should be altered to protect a person who acquires the right from the original owner. In addition, while case laws regard the legal quality of ownership acquisition of the consummator of acquisitive prescription as original acquisition, the right of a person who acquires limited realty before completing acquisitive prescription is considered to extinguish. And it is not valid that the right of a person who acquires limited realty after completing acquisitive prescription is not considered to extinguish. Therefore, it is necessary to protect the right of a person who acquires limited realty. The reason is that his right is looked upon as derivative acquisition. It will have to be ruled that if his right is considered as original acquisition, ownership acquisition registration by means of the completion of acquisitive prescription and the whole limited realty are nullified simultaneously irrespective of prior and posterior to completion of acquisitive prescription.

메타모델링을 이용한 IEC 61850과 IEC 61970 자산관리 데이터 모델 통합

함동욱(Dong-Wook Ham),양효식(Hyo-Sik Yang),장혁수(Hyuk-Soo Jang),홍대승(Dae-Seung Hong),김대규(Dae-Kyoo Kim) 대한전기학회 2013 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2013 No.7

대상청구권에 대한 입법론적 고찰

김대규,전완수 圓光大學校 法學硏究所 2006 法學硏究 Vol.22 No.2

When an obligation become insolvent after the fact, the Korean civil law provide that if it is caused by obligor's responsibility, he should take the burden of the debt, but he can be released from the debt if the default is not his own responsibility. In the latter case, meanwhile, it become an issue whether a consideration duty exists or not if the obligation is based on a bilateral contract. Accordingly, it has been settled by the provision of the risk bearing. The claim rights of vicarious compensation mean the creditors' right of recourse on the profit against the obligators when debtors make profits on vicarious compensation of the object to be fulfilled by the same causes which raised the insolvency. The Korean civil law has no provisionn on the claim rights of vicarious compensation, but the rights are expressly provided in substantive enactment of Germany and France. The rights are acknowledges, but the application scopes are different by each country in various cases like above, and the requisites and the effectiveness are as well. Moreover, the meaning of the claim rights of vicarious compensation in legal schemes and the harmonizations of the laws with other civil law systems are different due to the differences in the ways of the transfer of a real right and the principles of risk bearing etc. of the countries. In conclusion, due to the problems in itself as well as possible conflict with existing system and fairness breaking result of the acknowledging the claim right of vicarious compensation, it is reasonable that the Korean civil law should not acknowledge the claim rights of vicarious compensation.

遺留分制度에 관한 硏究

金大圭 湖南大學校 1984 호남대학교 학술논문집 Vol.4 No.-

The System of a legal portion of an heir is the system which is established in order that for a certain heir of heirs a legal portion of an inheritance should be reserved by an inhertiee. Our country did not adopted the system in the past until adopted it in 1977 through a partial amendment of the Civil Law Act. But because we have only seven insufficient provisions on the system, we have only many doubts in the construction of the Act. So in this treatise I tried to examine the origin of the system, the adoption process of it in the modern law, the existing models of the legislation in the several main legal systems comparatively, and the problems in our system, especially the assessment of a reserve and the claim of restoration of a reserve preponderantly. And finally on those bases I tried to mention the sturctural distinctions of our system as follow: 1) A reserve is the part of the property reverted to each rightful person for a reserve, which is certain part of one's own legal inheritance. 2) As a rightful person for a reserve should be an ingeritor and his reserve should be protected by his legal capacity, the claim for a reserve is related to the claim for a legal inheritance inseparably. 3) The releasement of only the claim for a reserve doesn't have any influence upon his status as an inheritor or upon the amounts of other inheritors reserves. 4) As a rightful person for a reserve should be an inheritor and has the claim for a reserve by his legal capacity, the claim should be characterized by a real right. 5) As the claim of restoration for a reserve should be a claim of a real right, the principle of the restoration in kind should be adopted as a rule. After all our system should be founded on the form of the German legal system, not of the Roman legal system which is different from the above one: consequently in the construction of the Act, a donee, a devisee or a legatee, and the profit of a third party should be considered comparatively on the base of German Law.