학술논문
건물의 부분전세권자의 경매청구권에 관한 연구
이용수 90
- 영문명
- A Study on the Right to Lease on a Deposit Basis and the Right to Request for an Auction
- 발행기관
- 한국사법학회(구 한국비교사법학회)
- 저자명
- 김영희(Young-Hee Kim)
- 간행물 정보
- 『비교사법』比較私法 제15권 제3호, 165~222쪽, 전체 58쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2008.09.30
9,760원
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
The right to lease on a deposit basis (Right to Jeonse, hereinafter, the right) has the traits of both the right to use of real property and the substantial right of a security. The person with the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter, the person), thus, is classified as a security right holder. Under the Korean property law, a security right holder has a preferential payment right. The article 303 of the Korean Civil Code states that the preferential payment right of the person, while the article 318 states the right to request for an auction of the person which actualizes the preferential payment right.
Various problems emerge on a relation between the right and the right holder’s another right to request for an auction. A typical example is how the person who has the right partially (hereinafter, the partial right) can actualize the preferential payment right by way of the right to request for an auction. The Korean Supreme Court has hardly affirmed the right to request for an auction, although the court has affirmed the right itself to the person who has the partial right. The author believes that the court makes wrong decisions. The author’s argument is like following: First, the person who has the partial right is also a security right holder because the article 303 gives the person the preferential payment right. Secondly, according to the article 318, the preferential payment right should be actualized by way of the right to request for an auction. Lastly, thus, the court has to affirm the request for the auction to the person who has the partial right.
The court, however, has continuously turned down the person’s request for an auction by setting a strict standard: The court has said that the building which is the object of the auction must meet quite considerable level of independence. The person who has the partial right hardly meet the standard because the person merely has the right within the limit of a part of the building. In the mean time, the Korean Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, not the Korean Civil Code, has lightened the standard of the independence. Notwithstanding, the court still keeps the strict standard. The author anticipates a new leading case, because all Acts and Codes in one legal system should be coherent to get a desirable level of legal exactness and stability.
Various problems emerge on a relation between the right and the right holder’s another right to request for an auction. A typical example is how the person who has the right partially (hereinafter, the partial right) can actualize the preferential payment right by way of the right to request for an auction. The Korean Supreme Court has hardly affirmed the right to request for an auction, although the court has affirmed the right itself to the person who has the partial right. The author believes that the court makes wrong decisions. The author’s argument is like following: First, the person who has the partial right is also a security right holder because the article 303 gives the person the preferential payment right. Secondly, according to the article 318, the preferential payment right should be actualized by way of the right to request for an auction. Lastly, thus, the court has to affirm the request for the auction to the person who has the partial right.
The court, however, has continuously turned down the person’s request for an auction by setting a strict standard: The court has said that the building which is the object of the auction must meet quite considerable level of independence. The person who has the partial right hardly meet the standard because the person merely has the right within the limit of a part of the building. In the mean time, the Korean Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, not the Korean Civil Code, has lightened the standard of the independence. Notwithstanding, the court still keeps the strict standard. The author anticipates a new leading case, because all Acts and Codes in one legal system should be coherent to get a desirable level of legal exactness and stability.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 건물의 부분전세권자와 경매청구권
Ⅲ. 건물의 부분전세권자에 의한 일부경매 청구
Ⅳ. 건물의 부분전세권자에 의한 전부경매 청구
Ⅴ. 부분전세권에 기한 전부경매와 담보물권의 불가분성
Ⅵ. 맺는 글
【참고문헌】
[Abstract]
Ⅱ. 건물의 부분전세권자와 경매청구권
Ⅲ. 건물의 부분전세권자에 의한 일부경매 청구
Ⅳ. 건물의 부분전세권자에 의한 전부경매 청구
Ⅴ. 부분전세권에 기한 전부경매와 담보물권의 불가분성
Ⅵ. 맺는 글
【참고문헌】
[Abstract]
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 民法 第485條의 債權者의 擔保保存義務
- 건물의 부분전세권자의 경매청구권에 관한 연구
- 금융리스계약의 하자담보책임
- 대부이자의 상한규제에 대한 비교법적 고찰
- 독립당사자참가와 상소 - 최근의 대법원판례를 소재로
- 온실가스 排出權 去來의 금융법상 논점
- 건물의 양도시 하자담보추급권자 - 프랑스 법으로부터의 시사와 집합건물법 제9조의 적용 확대 가능성
- 일본회사법상 옵션발행에 관한 연구
- 생명보험회사의 계약자배당에 대한 법적 고찰
- 病院感染損害에 대한 責任問題와 그 對策方案
- 國際的 扶養義務에 관한 硏究
- 서해안 기름 유출 사고와 삼성중공업의 배상책임
- 계약채무의 불이행으로 인한 비용배상
- 학회활동현황 외
- 일본의 LLC 입법과 미국의 LLC 입법의 비교
- 刊行辭
- 독일 소비자정보법(VIG)의 내용과 비판 등
- 학회활동 현황(2008.7.1 - 2008.9.30) 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!