본문 바로가기

추천 검색어

실시간 인기 검색어

학술논문

민법 제2편(물권) 제6장(전세권)과 제8장(질권) 중에서 삭제하여야 할 규정들

이용수 8

영문명
Provisions of Chonsegwon and Pledge That Need to Be Deleted in Korean Civil Act
발행기관
한국민사법학회
저자명
강태성(Kang Tae Seong)
간행물 정보
『민사법학』제44호, 175~218쪽, 전체 44쪽
주제분류
사회과학 > 사회과학일반
파일형태
PDF
발행일자
2009.03.31
8,080

구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.

1:1 문의
논문 표지

국문 초록

영문 초록

In amendment of Civil Act, deletion of unnecessary and unreasonable provisions is as important as alteration of exiting provisions and establishment of new provisions. Therefore, in this thesis, I investigate provisions that need to be deleted in Korean Civil Act PartⅡ(Real Rights) ChapterⅥ(Chonsegwon) and Ⅷ(Pledge) as follows. Ⅰ. Civil Act Article 308 This provision provides very heavy responsibility of the person that contacted for chonchonse. As long as I think, This heavy responsibility can not be existed in real life. And it is right to load responsibility in the case that intention or negligence exit. So, this provision is unnecessary and unreasonable. Therefore, it is right to delete this provision. Ⅱ. Civil Act Article 336 and 337 This provisions provide sub-pledge on pledgee s responsibility. With all things concidered, pledgee can loan as a pledge for his claim and pledge, not using this sub-pledge. And these provisions do not square with Civil Act Article 324 Clause 2. Therefore, it is right to delete this provision. Ⅲ. Civil Act Article 339 This provision provides ban of contact for foreclosure. As long as I think, the object of contact for foreclosure can be realized by the redemption or etc. Especially, contact for foreclosure can be ruled reasonably by Civil Act Article 607 and 608. Therefore, it is right to delete Civil Act Article 339. Ⅳ. Civil Act Article 340 Because this Article Clause 1 can not protect anyone, this clause is not reason for exiting. therefore, it is right to delete this clause. And, in the case of deleting this clause, Civil Act Article 340 Clause 2 is not reason for exiting. Therefore, it is right to delete this clause. Ⅴ. Civil Act Article 347 This provision provides about delivery of documents evidencing obligation. This provision is applied to setting up pledge for nominative claim. As long as I think, nominative claim is not linked inseparablly by documents evidencing the claim. So, this provision is scarcely exiting-value. therefore, it is right to delete this provision. Ⅵ. Civil Act Article 348 This provision provides pledge against mortgage claim and additional registration of pledge. As long as I think, this provision is against Civil Act Article 186 and 187 that provide fundmental rules on changes in real rights over immovables. therefore, it is right to delete this provision.

목차

Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 민법 제308조
Ⅲ. 민법 제336조와 제337조
Ⅳ. 민법 제339조
Ⅴ. 민법 제340조
Ⅵ. 민법 제347조
Ⅶ. 민법 제348조
Ⅷ. 맺음말
참고문헌

키워드

해당간행물 수록 논문

참고문헌

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!

교보e캐시 1,000원
TOP
인용하기
APA

강태성(Kang Tae Seong). (2009).민법 제2편(물권) 제6장(전세권)과 제8장(질권) 중에서 삭제하여야 할 규정들. 민사법학, (44), 175-218

MLA

강태성(Kang Tae Seong). "민법 제2편(물권) 제6장(전세권)과 제8장(질권) 중에서 삭제하여야 할 규정들." 민사법학, .44(2009): 175-218

결제완료
e캐시 원 결제 계속 하시겠습니까?
교보 e캐시 간편 결제