集合債權 讓渡擔保와 否認權의 行使
A Study on the Collective Clains Security by means of Transfer and the Avoidance Right
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In addition to the implication of right to claim the payment against debtor, a claim may have the function of security in the aspect that it has the property value like the way of personal property or real estate. In a realistic sense, in the event of creditor who has a number of small amount claims which may be insufficient for property assets on real estate or the like, the value as the security in each individual claim is insignificant that there is necessity to provide the security with all these claims collectively combined as one. And,even if the claim is not about a small, there is a need to transfer a number of claims to transfer in one lump set as in the same way to obtain more claims. The collective claims security by means of transfer may be termed as a new mean for financing in responding to the demand from such practitioners. In the event of the reserved type and suspension condition type collective claims security by means of transfer, even if it is expected for the crisis situation of the party to set the security interest, it is interpreted as not subject to exercise the right of avoidance under the current law (Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). However, in such a case, the principle of equality for creditor that is particularly required at the time of being violated that it would deviate from the legal order as purported by the current law that it has to recognize the exercise of the avoidance right thereof. To be short, the Special Act (Act on Securities in Personal Property,Claim and others) has prepared the system to register the collective claims security by means of transfer, if not complied with such a procedure, the avoidance shall be granted in principle.
Abstract
In addition to the implication of right to claim the payment against debtor, a claim may have the function of security in the aspect that it has the property value like the way of personal property or real estate. In a realistic sense, in the event of creditor who has a number of small amount claims which may be insufficient for property assets on real estate or the like, the value as the security in each individual claim is insignificant that there is necessity to provide the security with all these claims collectively combined as one. And,even if the claim is not about a small, there is a need to transfer a number of claims to transfer in one lump set as in the same way to obtain more claims. The collective claims security by means of transfer may be termed as a new mean for financing in responding to the demand from such practitioners. In the event of the reserved type and suspension condition type collective claims security by means of transfer, even if it is expected for the crisis situation of the party to set the security interest, it is interpreted as not subject to exercise the right of avoidance under the current law (Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). However, in such a case, the principle of equality for creditor that is particularly required at the time of being violated that it would deviate from the legal order as purported by the current law that it has to recognize the exercise of the avoidance right thereof. To be short, the Special Act (Act on Securities in Personal Property,Claim and others) has prepared the system to register the collective claims security by means of transfer, if not complied with such a procedure, the avoidance shall be granted in principle.
참고문헌 (24)
- 김기진, "우리 도산법상의 부인권에 관한 연구", 강원법학, 11 (1999), 강원대학교 비교법학연구소
- 김기진, "권리변동의 효력요건 또는 대항요건의 부인”", 강원법학, 12 (2000), 강원대학교 비교법학연구소
- 김기진, "회생절차에서의 부인권", 동아법학, (42), pp.355~380 (2008), 법학연구소
- 남윤봉, "파산법입문" (1999), 한양대학교출판부
- 남효정, "도산법강의" (2005), 법문사
- 김희동, "집합채권의 양도담보에 관한 법적 문제", 안암법학, (30), pp.183~230 (2009), 안암법학회
- 배병일, "집합채권의 양도담보", 민사재판의 제문제(상), 송천 이시윤박사 화갑기념논문집 (1995)
- 신봉근, "유동집합채권의 양도담보", 인권과 정의, (344), pp.61~78 (2005), 대한변호사협회
- 오수근, "도산법의 이해" (2008), 이화여자대학교출판부
- 이병화, "파산법 이해" (2002), 삼우사
- 이재화, "파산법" (2001), 법률문화사
- 田炳西, "破産法上 否認權에 관한 立法論的 考察 -채무자회생및파산에관한법률안의 검토를 겸하여-", 저스티스, 75 (2003), 한국법학원
- 전병서, "도산법" (2006), 법문사
- 高地茂世, "對抗要件の否認", 判例タイムズ, (830) (1994), 判例タイムズ社
- 宮廻美明, "將來債權の包括的讓渡豫約と否認權の行使", 法律時報, 55(8) (1983), 日本評論社
- 吉岡伸一, "停止條件付集合債權讓渡擔保契約等と破産法による否認", 金融法務事情, (1699) (2004), 金融財政事情硏究會
- 三林宏, "集合債權讓渡擔保: 豫約型の役割ㆍ機能を中心として", NBL, (766) (2003), 商事法務
- 上原敬, "停止條件付集合債權讓渡擔保契約と否認權について", 銀行法務, 21(558), 經濟法令硏究會
- 石渡哲, "1 破産手續において集合債權讓渡の通知が否認の對象となるとされた事例. 2 故意否認及び危機否認の規定の準用により停止條件付集合債權讓渡擔保契約が否認された事例", 判例評論, (489) (1999)
- 飯島敬子, "集合債權讓渡擔保契約の否認", 判例タイムズ, 54(4)통권 : 1108 (2003), 判例タイムズ社
- 長井秀典, "停止條件付集合債權讓渡の對抗要件否認", 判例タイムズ, 49(7) (1998), 判例タイムズ社
- 田頭章一, "集合債權讓渡擔保と對抗要件の否認", 法律時報 別冊 私法判例リマークス, (19) (1999), 日本評論社
- 志田博文, "集合動産․集合債權と讓渡擔保", 現代民事裁判の課題, 3 (1983)
- 椿壽夫, "集合債權擔保の硏究" (1989), 有斐閣
