학술논문
채권자취소권에 대한 고찰 - 민법 제2조에 기초한 새로운 해석가능성을 중심으로
이용수 189
- 영문명
- A Study on the Creditor’s Right to Rescind the Debtor’s Contract with a Third Party under Section 407 of the Korean Civil Code with Special Focus on the Possibility of a New Interpretationunder Section 2 of the Korean Civil Code
- 발행기관
- 한국재산법학회
- 저자명
- 손종학(Sohn Jong-Hak)
- 간행물 정보
- 『재산법연구』財産法硏究 第24卷 第2號, 183~206쪽, 전체 24쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2007.10.30
5,680원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
Although the Korean Civil Code provides for the creditor"s right to rescind the debtor"s contract with a third party under section 407, it had long been underutilized until financial institutions began to exercise such right as a means of preserving the debtors" property during the 1997 Korean Foreign Exchange Crisis. Accordingly, its increased use has attracted attention from legal scholars since then. However, in reality creditors have the difficulty in fully exercising the right under sections 406 and 407 due to several legal problems. This Article aims to suggest theoretical solutions to these problems, which are summarized as follows.
First, it is needed to use section 2 of the Civil Code (principle of good faith) as a new legal basis for the creditor"s right to rescind. Although the creditor"s right to rescind is commonly understood as one of the legally-created creditor"s rights such as those rights based on torts and unjust enrichment, this observation can make sense because it is certainly arguable that debtors have the sincere duty to conserve their own property in the creditors" interests under the principle of good faith.
Second, the object of the creditor"s right to rescind need not be limited to the creditor"s claims to the debtor under the original contract, but rather must be extended to all of the debtor"s property. Additionally, the creditor"s right must include a right to affirmative injunction. This new interpretation can be more fully harmonized with the overall scheme of the Civil Code.
Third and lastly, it is needed to recognize the creditor"s right to directly demand the withdrawal of movables and money from a third party, with a proviso that the creditor should not be allowed to dispose of reclaimed movables and money to satisfy her claims to the debtor against the interests of other creditors. And it is desirable to induce creditors to take advantage of the performance deposition system under section 487 of the Civil Code.
First, it is needed to use section 2 of the Civil Code (principle of good faith) as a new legal basis for the creditor"s right to rescind. Although the creditor"s right to rescind is commonly understood as one of the legally-created creditor"s rights such as those rights based on torts and unjust enrichment, this observation can make sense because it is certainly arguable that debtors have the sincere duty to conserve their own property in the creditors" interests under the principle of good faith.
Second, the object of the creditor"s right to rescind need not be limited to the creditor"s claims to the debtor under the original contract, but rather must be extended to all of the debtor"s property. Additionally, the creditor"s right must include a right to affirmative injunction. This new interpretation can be more fully harmonized with the overall scheme of the Civil Code.
Third and lastly, it is needed to recognize the creditor"s right to directly demand the withdrawal of movables and money from a third party, with a proviso that the creditor should not be allowed to dispose of reclaimed movables and money to satisfy her claims to the debtor against the interests of other creditors. And it is desirable to induce creditors to take advantage of the performance deposition system under section 487 of the Civil Code.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 채권자취소권의 의의
Ⅲ. 민법 제407조의 의미와의 관련 문제
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
Ⅱ. 채권자취소권의 의의
Ⅲ. 민법 제407조의 의미와의 관련 문제
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 채권자취소권에 대한 고찰 - 민법 제2조에 기초한 새로운 해석가능성을 중심으로
- Non-Economic Damages in Breach of Contract Cases - Comparative Analysis of Korea, Germany, France, and the United States
- A Comparative Study on Seller"s Obligations under the Uniform Contact Law of China and under the CISG
- 저당권에 기한 방해배제청구권
- 언론 · 출판의 자유와 명예보호 사이의 한계 - 영연방국가와의 비교를 중심으로
- 국제협약상 식물유전자원의 보호에 관한 고찰
- 독일 불법행위법상 去來安全義務 (Verkehrspflichten)의 의미와 체계적 위치
- 의사의 전말보고의무에 관한 비교법적 고찰
- 채권자취소권 행사의 제척기간에 관한 판례의 동향
- 해저지반의 사적 소유권 인정 여부에 관한 일본해석론의 동향
- 유럽연합의 기업지배구조 개선 동향
- 전자거래에서의 착오의 문제 서설 - 전자상거래소비자보호법의 검토
- 附錄 외
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!