RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    부동산등기의 추정력의 본질과 효과 = Presumptive nature and effects of the recordation of real estate

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A106904727

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    We have recognized the presumptive effect to the recordation of real estate, and used all together the concept of the presumptive effect as the meaning of the ‘presumptive effect by law’ and the ‘presumption of right’, that is to say, the meaning of the ‘presumption of right by law’. We have all agreed that the presumptive effect of recordation encompasses the substantive facts as well as the recordation-procedural facts, and the incident facts. However, we have had little sufficient and systematic discussions on the means to rebut the presumption. Our erroneous understanding as to the concept of ‘the presumption of right’ has caused the difficulties in the confirmation of the objects of presumption, but also the trouble in the systematic understanding of the means to rebut the presumption. In light of above, what follows is the summary of what I have argued before. First, the true meaning of the ‘presumption of right’ is not the presumption of ‘rights’ but that of ‘facts’, and the term is only the compressive expression of ‘the legal principle that the existence of a right is eventually presumed’. The right definition of the ‘presumption of right’ is the presumption of the fact that there are sufficient facts needed for the recorded right. Second, the presumptive effect of the recordation of real estate encompasses the three types of facts : the substantive facts ; the recordation-procedural facts ; the incident facts. Especially, the substantive facts originally mean a realty agreement, but also mean a obligative contract, because a realty agreement and a obligative contract are both needed for the recorded right. Third, the rebuttal against the presumption is generally accomplished simply by the proof of the facts that are not reconcilable with the substantive and procedural facts. Finally, in case of ‘Special Statutes of Recording Procedure’, given the procedural characteristics and the legislative goals, in addition to the substantive and recordation-procedural facts, the scope of presumption encompasses every other fact needed for the recorded right. Therefore, one who wants to rebut the presumption should prove not only the facts that are not reconcilable with the substantive and recordation-procedural facts but also all other facts that are not reconcilable with the recorded right.
    번역하기

    We have recognized the presumptive effect to the recordation of real estate, and used all together the concept of the presumptive effect as the meaning of the ‘presumptive effect by law’ and the ‘presumption of right’, that is to say, the mean...

    We have recognized the presumptive effect to the recordation of real estate, and used all together the concept of the presumptive effect as the meaning of the ‘presumptive effect by law’ and the ‘presumption of right’, that is to say, the meaning of the ‘presumption of right by law’. We have all agreed that the presumptive effect of recordation encompasses the substantive facts as well as the recordation-procedural facts, and the incident facts. However, we have had little sufficient and systematic discussions on the means to rebut the presumption. Our erroneous understanding as to the concept of ‘the presumption of right’ has caused the difficulties in the confirmation of the objects of presumption, but also the trouble in the systematic understanding of the means to rebut the presumption. In light of above, what follows is the summary of what I have argued before. First, the true meaning of the ‘presumption of right’ is not the presumption of ‘rights’ but that of ‘facts’, and the term is only the compressive expression of ‘the legal principle that the existence of a right is eventually presumed’. The right definition of the ‘presumption of right’ is the presumption of the fact that there are sufficient facts needed for the recorded right. Second, the presumptive effect of the recordation of real estate encompasses the three types of facts : the substantive facts ; the recordation-procedural facts ; the incident facts. Especially, the substantive facts originally mean a realty agreement, but also mean a obligative contract, because a realty agreement and a obligative contract are both needed for the recorded right. Third, the rebuttal against the presumption is generally accomplished simply by the proof of the facts that are not reconcilable with the substantive and procedural facts. Finally, in case of ‘Special Statutes of Recording Procedure’, given the procedural characteristics and the legislative goals, in addition to the substantive and recordation-procedural facts, the scope of presumption encompasses every other fact needed for the recorded right. Therefore, one who wants to rebut the presumption should prove not only the facts that are not reconcilable with the substantive and recordation-procedural facts but also all other facts that are not reconcilable with the recorded right.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • Ⅰ. 서 론 Ⅱ. 등기 추정력의 본질 Ⅲ. 효 과 Ⅳ. 특수한 등기의 추정력 Ⅴ. 결 론
    • Ⅰ. 서 론 Ⅱ. 등기 추정력의 본질 Ⅲ. 효 과 Ⅳ. 특수한 등기의 추정력 Ⅴ. 결 론
    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼