RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
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
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      김상용 교수 정년 기념 분묘기지권의 인정근거와 효력에 관한 약간의 고찰 = A Study on the Legal Basis and Force of the Site Right of Graveyards

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A100447340

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      The site right of graveyards is to allow a person who made a tomb in another’s land to use the tomb site, which can be defined as a real right similar to superficies, a kind of customary laws. In regard to the site right of graveyards, judicial precedents have granted it unquestioningly, but in recent times more have raised strong opposition against the customary law, citing ‘Act of the Funeral(funeral act)’ and socioeconomic changes in Korean society as the ground. Ordinarily, the site right of graveyards is granted in three cases - where a tomb has been made with the permission of the land owner (permissioned right), where the right has fallen under acquisitive prescription (right with acquisitive prescription), and where a tomb and a land owned by the same person have been separated from each other and belonged to different persons (transferred right). The site right of graveyards has usually been acknowledged with customary laws. The permissioned right is a good example. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to regard the right with acquisitive prescription and the transferred right as customary, and moreover it is reasonable to regard the custom as obsolete. In the case of the permissioned right, there is the need to compare those days and our times. In our times, thus, the custom is counted as passed away. In addition, the right with acquisitive prescription is problematic because it may wrongly infringe upon others’ land ownership and, by extension, may protect malicious and illegal occupants. Likewise, the transferred right is problematic given the fact that there has been increasing criticism of statutory superficies and that land that purchasers have had problems. Taken altogether, it may be rational to conclude that the site right of graveyards has lapsed subsequent to the enforcement of the funeral act. Meanwhile, in terms of public confidence and legal safety, it is unadvisable to retrospectively apply the newly-enacted Funeral Act to tombs made under the former requirements, notwithstanding the lapse of the right. It may be advisable to grant the site right of graveyards in the case of tombs made under requirements, provided that the term of duration is determined with ground rent. Additionally, a review needs to be conducted even on rightful cases, inclusive of right holders. With this proposal, the site right of graveyards is expected to be gradually rearranged as the restricted real right to lapse gradually.
      번역하기

      The site right of graveyards is to allow a person who made a tomb in another’s land to use the tomb site, which can be defined as a real right similar to superficies, a kind of customary laws. In regard to the site right of graveyards, judicial prec...

      The site right of graveyards is to allow a person who made a tomb in another’s land to use the tomb site, which can be defined as a real right similar to superficies, a kind of customary laws. In regard to the site right of graveyards, judicial precedents have granted it unquestioningly, but in recent times more have raised strong opposition against the customary law, citing ‘Act of the Funeral(funeral act)’ and socioeconomic changes in Korean society as the ground. Ordinarily, the site right of graveyards is granted in three cases - where a tomb has been made with the permission of the land owner (permissioned right), where the right has fallen under acquisitive prescription (right with acquisitive prescription), and where a tomb and a land owned by the same person have been separated from each other and belonged to different persons (transferred right). The site right of graveyards has usually been acknowledged with customary laws. The permissioned right is a good example. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to regard the right with acquisitive prescription and the transferred right as customary, and moreover it is reasonable to regard the custom as obsolete. In the case of the permissioned right, there is the need to compare those days and our times. In our times, thus, the custom is counted as passed away. In addition, the right with acquisitive prescription is problematic because it may wrongly infringe upon others’ land ownership and, by extension, may protect malicious and illegal occupants. Likewise, the transferred right is problematic given the fact that there has been increasing criticism of statutory superficies and that land that purchasers have had problems. Taken altogether, it may be rational to conclude that the site right of graveyards has lapsed subsequent to the enforcement of the funeral act. Meanwhile, in terms of public confidence and legal safety, it is unadvisable to retrospectively apply the newly-enacted Funeral Act to tombs made under the former requirements, notwithstanding the lapse of the right. It may be advisable to grant the site right of graveyards in the case of tombs made under requirements, provided that the term of duration is determined with ground rent. Additionally, a review needs to be conducted even on rightful cases, inclusive of right holders. With this proposal, the site right of graveyards is expected to be gradually rearranged as the restricted real right to lapse gradually.

      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