학술논문
건물의 양도시 하자담보추급권자 - 프랑스 법으로부터의 시사와 집합건물법 제9조의 적용 확대 가능성
이용수 61
- 영문명
- The Beneficiaries of Constructor’s Guarantee after the Ownership Changed
- 발행기관
- 한국사법학회(구 한국비교사법학회)
- 저자명
- 이준형(Joon-Hyong Lee)
- 간행물 정보
- 『비교사법』比較私法 제15권 제3호, 259~293쪽, 전체 35쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2008.09.30
7,000원
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 current article 1792 (1) of the French Civil Code lay down: “The constructor of an building is …… legally liable to the employer or the acquirer of the building.” It was actually amended in 1978 to reflect the jurisprudence so far developed, regarding the employer’s action for construction defects as accessory to the ownership.
In Korea, law provides for the counterpart in art. 9 of the Condominium Act as the articles on the general contractor’s defect liability (667 to 671 of the Korean Civil Code) correspondingly apply, notwithstanding any agreement favorable for, to the creator of a condominium. To the question, who is beneficiary of the liability laid down here, the Korean Supreme Court declared in 2003 that the right to remedies should belong to the current condominium owner, though she/he has no contractual relationship with the original creator.
After reviewing developments of law in France since 1978, as fruits of comparative law work, this these listed five possible suggestions on the action for defects of a condominium: (1)no sooner should the action be in principle deemed to move to a new owner than the property right is transferred, (2)to whom already belongs to a contractual remedy against the old owner from their transfer contract. (3)The damages to be claimed should be on principle own ones; it should be noted that qualification of the contract could have influence over the defendant’s foreseeability, especially when a mandatory does usually not expect any change of its mandator. (4)Moreover, the same status should be admitted to the owndership successor of other accomodations than condominiums; a simple usufructuary could make appeal to the action on art. 401 of the Korean Civil Code, according to current jurisprudence. (5)Last but not at least, there could be hardly found any reasonable necessity to restrict the doctrine to condominiums that the remedy should be transferred subject to the ownership in the above described way, the legislative sources of which the Korean Supreme Court found in art. 9 of the Condominium Act in the 2003 decision; hence is suggested here to widen the scope of application to all sorts of immovables subject to registration. In other words, the article should be an expression of a more general - constitutional - principle of property protection as well as of the state’s concern to citizens’ security.
In Korea, law provides for the counterpart in art. 9 of the Condominium Act as the articles on the general contractor’s defect liability (667 to 671 of the Korean Civil Code) correspondingly apply, notwithstanding any agreement favorable for, to the creator of a condominium. To the question, who is beneficiary of the liability laid down here, the Korean Supreme Court declared in 2003 that the right to remedies should belong to the current condominium owner, though she/he has no contractual relationship with the original creator.
After reviewing developments of law in France since 1978, as fruits of comparative law work, this these listed five possible suggestions on the action for defects of a condominium: (1)no sooner should the action be in principle deemed to move to a new owner than the property right is transferred, (2)to whom already belongs to a contractual remedy against the old owner from their transfer contract. (3)The damages to be claimed should be on principle own ones; it should be noted that qualification of the contract could have influence over the defendant’s foreseeability, especially when a mandatory does usually not expect any change of its mandator. (4)Moreover, the same status should be admitted to the owndership successor of other accomodations than condominiums; a simple usufructuary could make appeal to the action on art. 401 of the Korean Civil Code, according to current jurisprudence. (5)Last but not at least, there could be hardly found any reasonable necessity to restrict the doctrine to condominiums that the remedy should be transferred subject to the ownership in the above described way, the legislative sources of which the Korean Supreme Court found in art. 9 of the Condominium Act in the 2003 decision; hence is suggested here to widen the scope of application to all sorts of immovables subject to registration. In other words, the article should be an expression of a more general - constitutional - principle of property protection as well as of the state’s concern to citizens’ security.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 소재
Ⅱ. 프랑스 법의 전개
Ⅲ. 結語 - 우리 법에의 시사
【참고문헌】
[Abstract]
Ⅱ. 프랑스 법의 전개
Ⅲ. 結語 - 우리 법에의 시사
【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!