소멸시효와 신의칙
Prescription and Good Faith Principle
0
조회
0
다운로드
82
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Abstract
Prescription and the precept of good faith principle seem to create considerable tension when confronted with each other. This is partly due to the fact that the former is in pursuit of legal certainty, while the latter is in pursuit of equitable outcome. However, these two precepts are in line with each other, for the law of prescription has already incorporated the rationale of good faith within its system. Therefore, good faith principle is, in a sense, a building block for the law of prescription. Equity, which is pursued by good faith principle, can be realized through various mechanisms within the law of prescription, including commencement of the prescription period, renewal and waiver of the right to invoke prescription. Furthermore, Korean courts have been showing favorable stance toward the creditor in operating the above mechanisms. With this in mind, invoking on the good faith principle in order to make the defence of prescription inadmissible should be done in great caution. In general, this is only applicable when the defendant has actively and culpably caused considerable difficulty of raising the claim. However, once good faith principle steps in, it should be flexible enough to reach equitable outcome. This flexibility needs to be allowed in setting the period of raising the claim again after the difficulty disappears, or in determining the scope of liability that the defendant should bear.
참고문헌 (28)
- 郭潤直, "民法總則, 第7版", ~ (2002)
- 郭潤直, "民法注解 (Ⅰ)(Ⅲ)", ~ (1992)
- 法務部, "民法(財産編) 改正 資料集", ~ (2004)
- 李英俊, "民法總則, 改訂增補版", ~ (2007)
- 玄勝種, "로마법", ~ (1996)
- 金山直樹, "時效理論展開の軌跡 - 民法學における傳統と變革", ~ (1993)
- 內田, "大村敦志 編", 民法の爭點, ~ (2007)
- Ewoud H. Hondius, "Extinctive Prescription on the Limitation of Actions", ~ (1995)
- Fikentscher, "Schuldrecht, 10 Aufl", ~ (2006)
- Larenz, "Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Rechts, 6. Aufl", ~ (1983)
- Larenz, "Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Rechts, 9. Aufl", ~ (2004)
- "Münchener Kommentar, 4. Aufl", ~ (2003)
- Ole Lando, "Principles of European Contract Law, Part Ⅲ", ~ (2003)
- Palandt, "Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, 67.Aufl", ~ (2008)
- 권영준, "민사재판에 있어서 이론, 법리, 실무", 서울대학교 법학, 49(3), pp.313~354 (2008), 법학연구소
- 백태승, "2008年度 學界 및 判例動向", 考試界, 통권 : 623 (2009)
- 尹眞秀, "消滅時效의 濫用에 관한 考察", 석사, pp.1984
- 이범균, "국가의 소멸시효 완성 주장이 신의칙에 반하여 권리남용에 해당하는지 여부에 관한 판단기준", 대법원판례해설, (54) (2006)
- 李柱玄, "채권자의 권리행사가 객관적으로 불가능한 사실상의 장애사유가 있음에 불과한 경우 채무자의 소멸시효항변이 신의칙에 반한다는 이유로 허용하지 않을 수 있는지 여부", 대법원판례해설, (42) (2003)
- 張晳朝, "소멸시효 항변의 소송상 취급", 民事裁判의 諸問題, 10 (2000)
- 최은배, "산업재해보상보험법상의 보험급여청구권과 소멸시효", 裁判資料, 108 (2005)
- 星野英一, "時效に關する覺書", 民法論集, 4 (1996)
- 半田吉信, "消滅時效の援用と信義則", ジュリスト, (872) (1986)
- Adam Bain, "Interpreting Federal Statutes of Limitations", Creighton L. Rev, 37, pp.493~571 (2004)
- Andrew J. Wistrich, "Procrastination, Deadlines, and Statutes of Limitation", Wm. & Mary L. Rev, 50, pp.607~ (2008)
- Ehud Guttel, "A New Approach to Old Cases: Reconsidering Statutes of Limitation", U. Toronto L, 54, pp.129~ (2004)
- Mansel, "Die Neuregelung des Verjährungsrechts", NJW, ~ (2002)
- N.H.Andrews, "Reform of Limitation of Actions: The Quest for Sound Policy", Cambridge Law Journal, 57(3) (1998)