학술논문
담보물권의 목적인 채권의 상계
이용수 45
- 영문명
- A Study on the Setoff over pledged claims
- 발행기관
- 한국민사법학회
- 저자명
- 조경임(Cho Kyung-im)
- 간행물 정보
- 『민사법학』제73호, 3~48쪽, 전체 46쪽
- 주제분류
- 사회과학 > 사회과학일반
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2015.12.31
8,320원
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 Supreme Court has traditionally ruled that the pledgee has preferential right to payment, and thus the holder of opposite-demand (the third debtor) cannot contest pledge using setoff. This shows that the court recognizes the fact that setoff functions as a means of private enforcement and thus considers holders of setoff rights as a competing creditor. This is a reasonable standpoint. As setoff functions in reality as a means of private execution, this reality should be considered when granting or denying setoff rights. However, the ruling in question(2013da91672) states that provided that the expectation of setoff is reasonable, it can be used to contest pledge granted by way of security to pledged claim. Pledge has priority over credit, regardless of the timing of their formation. Therefore, it is natural to concluded that even if the expectation of setoff was established before the pledge, setoff cannot be given priority over pledge. The ruling in question states that as long as a creditor’s expectation of setoff is reasonable, it cannot be damaged by ex post facto grounds such as the establishment of pledge granted by way of security. However, it is disputable that “reasonable expectation of setoff is a concept with any factual substance that cannot be damaged once established. Until now, this issue has been discussed in relation to the interpretation of Article 498 of the Civil Act where said interested parties are (provisional) seizure obligees. The ruling in question appears to be based on such existing discussions of Article 498 of the Civil Act. However, interested parties shoud be distinguished between (provisional) seizure obligees and real right holders. If the enforcement function of setoff is not disregarded, the priority of real right to credit should also be considered as ground to limit setoff rights. Thus, the correct ruling in the case in question should be that the loan creditor cannot contest the lease right(chonsegwon)-mortgagee with setoff.
목차
Ⅰ. 사실관계 및 각급법원의 판단
Ⅱ. 논의의 전체
Ⅲ. 수동채권이 담보물권의 목적인 경우에 관한 논의
Ⅳ. 마치며-상계 기대의 합리성 판단
해당간행물 수록 논문
참고문헌
관련논문
사회과학 > 사회과학일반분야 BEST
더보기사회과학 > 사회과학일반분야 NEW
- Journal of Asia Social Science Vol.11 No.2 목차
- Pentadic Criticism of T.S. Eliot’s Plays
- An Analysis of the Role of Religion in China's Foreign Exchanges from the Perspective of the Community of Human Destiny
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!