遺言의 無效와 辯護士의 責任 - 獨逸과 英國의 論議를 중심으로

• 영문명: Nonconforming Will and Solicitor’s Liability -Centering Around German and English Dispute-
• 발행기관: 한국사법학회(구 한국비교사법학회)
• 저자명: 李昌鉉(Chang-Hyun Lee)
• 간행물 정보: 『비교사법』比較私法 제14권 제4호, 173~204쪽, 전체 32쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2007.12.30

영문 초록

  This paper aims to dispute as to which remedy is available to the disappointed intended beneficiary under will in case he lost his legacy on account of solicitor’s negligence. While German Supreme Court held the disappointed beneficiary could recover damages for solicitor’s negligence in contract, House of Lords held the disappointed beneficiary could recover damages for solicitor’s negligence in tort. Because there is neither tortious liability of pure economic loss in Germany nor contract for the benefit of third parties in England. Traditionally, the protection of pure economic loss is the exclusive domain of the law of contract, but exceptionally can be permitted by the law of torts.
  In Korea the disappointed beneficiary can recover damages to solicitor in tort. Because contractual remedy is in danger of limiting testator’s testamentary freedom. But the disappointed beneficiary can’t remedy unjust enrichment to the unintended beneficiary. Because intestacy holds good. The categorisation of the beneficiary’s interest as a mere spes successionis is not right. because upon the death of the testator the beneficiary’s interest crystallises and the mere expectation ought then to become an entitlement to the legacy and due to the solicitor’s negligence the beneficiary’s interest never becomes an entitlement.

목차

Ⅰ. 序論
Ⅱ. 獨逸의 論議
Ⅲ. 英國의 論議
Ⅳ. 우리 民法上 解釋論
Ⅴ. 結論
【參考文獻】
[Abstract]

키워드

상속기대 순수재산손해 수유자 지정상속인 방식에 좇지 않은 유언 변호사의 과실 신뢰 Spes Successionis Pure Economic Loss The Disappointed Beneficiary Nonconforming Will Solicitor’s Negligence Reliance