제3자에 의한 채권침해의 입법화 방안
A Legislative Consideration of Claim Infringement by the Third Person
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Nowadays, it is very frequently happen that the claim is not realized its perform with infringement or it is get in the way by the third person because the scope of transaction is enlarged day by day and diversified the types of transactions in the economic life. This is the issue of claim infringement by the third person. The claim infringement by the third person was introduced firstly in the United Kingdom case, and the issue of this legal agenda discussed when Germany, French, Japan Civil Code enacted but legislature was failed. This issue is directly included in the second Restatement of Torts law in United States even she lately treated this question. The claim infringement by the third person is not substantive enactment in the specific act but individual jurisdiction court case and academic theory coincidently accepted the issues. In addition, claim infringement by the third person may possible with negligence; however it was only approved with intent in the past. Furthermore, many states have researched the types of claim infringement. The claim infringement currently firmly fixed with recognized in the academic dogma and court decision in this way and the protection area of claim is expanded step by step. Besides, the claim is included by regarding it as an important damage as we see and revised draft of French Civil Code, principle of EU torts law and principle of EU indemnification for damage, revised draft of Japanese Civil Code are included in the statutes to meet the global standard. Currently, Korean government under revising the Civil Code, I would suggest the claim infringement by the third person should be incorporated in the statute to satisfied the international standard and dogma and precedent are agreed the principle may applied the case in the subject matter. Therefore this piece may contribute on that point exactly and can be a good literature.
Abstract
Nowadays, it is very frequently happen that the claim is not realized its perform with infringement or it is get in the way by the third person because the scope of transaction is enlarged day by day and diversified the types of transactions in the economic life. This is the issue of claim infringement by the third person. The claim infringement by the third person was introduced firstly in the United Kingdom case, and the issue of this legal agenda discussed when Germany, French, Japan Civil Code enacted but legislature was failed. This issue is directly included in the second Restatement of Torts law in United States even she lately treated this question. The claim infringement by the third person is not substantive enactment in the specific act but individual jurisdiction court case and academic theory coincidently accepted the issues. In addition, claim infringement by the third person may possible with negligence; however it was only approved with intent in the past. Furthermore, many states have researched the types of claim infringement. The claim infringement currently firmly fixed with recognized in the academic dogma and court decision in this way and the protection area of claim is expanded step by step. Besides, the claim is included by regarding it as an important damage as we see and revised draft of French Civil Code, principle of EU torts law and principle of EU indemnification for damage, revised draft of Japanese Civil Code are included in the statutes to meet the global standard. Currently, Korean government under revising the Civil Code, I would suggest the claim infringement by the third person should be incorporated in the statute to satisfied the international standard and dogma and precedent are agreed the principle may applied the case in the subject matter. Therefore this piece may contribute on that point exactly and can be a good literature.
참고문헌 (47)
- 김현선, "제3자에 의한 채권침해에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2011
- 박영규, "제3자의 채권침해 이론 비판", 법률행정론집, 13, pp.47~ (2006), 서울시립대학교
- 김재형, , pp.546~ (2010), 사법발전재단
- 김형배, "제3자에 의한 채권침해", 법학논집, 22, pp.134~ (1984), 고려대학교법학연구소
- Larenz, "Lehrbuch des Schuldrecht zweiter Besonderer Teil 2. Halbband, 13. Aufl", pp.456~ (1994)
- Staudinger, "Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen", pp.224~ (2003)
- B. Starck, "Des contrats concelus en violation des droits contractuels d'autrui", J.C.P, pp.45~47 (1954)
- S. Ginossar, "Droit réel, propriété et créance", 65~67 (1960)
- F. Bertrand, "L’opposabilité du contrat aux tiers", thèse Paris Ⅱ dactyl, 171~ (1979)
- J. Duclos, "L’opposabilité (Essai d’unethéorie générale)", thèse Rennes Ⅰ 1981 éd. 1984, 176~ (1984)
- 정태윤, "契約上의 債務의 不履行이 제3자에 대하여 不法行爲가 되는가? - 프랑스의 예를 중심으로 -", 법학논집, 13(2), pp.1~27 (2009), 법학연구소
- Robert Heard Hale, "Inc. v. Gaiennie, La.App. 102 So.2d 324", ~ (1958)
- William L. Prosser, "On the law of Torts, In On the law of Torts, 5th ed", pp.981~ (1984), West Pub
- 김현선, "日本 民法上의 第3者에 의한 債權侵害 - 학설의 발전과정과 새로운 유형화의 논의를 중심으로 -", 동아법학, (52), pp.569~603 (2011), 법학연구소
- 김현선, "第3者에 의한 債權侵害의 類型的 考察", 외법논집, 35(4), pp.283~304 (2011), 법학연구소
- 서희석, "日本民法改正試案假案(2009年1月1日案)", 아세아민상법학, (3), pp.97~98 (2009), 재단법인 한중일민상법통일연구소
- 民法改正硏究會, "民法改正硏究會․假案(平成21年1月1日案)", 判例タイムズ, (1281) (2009)
- 民法改正硏究會, "民法改正 國民․法曹․學界有志案(仮案․平成21年10月25日シソポジウム國民提出案", pp.228~ (2009), 日本評論社
- 王澤鑒, "民法債編總論, 第1冊", pp.19~ (1993), 三民书局
- 程啸, "侵權行爲法總則", pp.239~ (2007), 中國人民大學出版社
- 김현선, "제3자에 의한 채권침해의 입법화 방안", 성균관법학, 24(4), pp.119~151 (2012), 법학연구소
- 张民安, "过錯侵權責任制度硏究", pp.607~ (2002), 中國政法大學出版社
- 王利明, "中國民法案例与學理硏究", pp.238~ (2003), 法律出版社
- 王利明, "違約責任論", pp.743~ (2003), 中國政法大學出版社
- 宋忠貹, "論債權關係中對第三人的法律規制", 河北學刊, 26(6) (2006)
- 胡宏征, "第三人侵害債權制度硏究", pp.44~ (2004)
- 김성수, "중화인민공화국 민법제정과정에서의 양혜성 교수의 불법행위편초안에 관한 연구", 경대 논문집, 27, pp.114~ (2007), 경찰대학
- 김성수, "중화인민공화국 민법제정과정에서의 왕리명 교수의 불법행위편초안에 관한 연구(1)", 사법행정, pp.52~ (2008), 사법행정학회
- 김성수, "중화인민공화국 민법제정과정의 마창화 교수의 불법행위법초안에 관한 연구(3) : 그 민법전·침권행위법(건의초안)(2003)의 일반론과 조문내용을 중심으로", 사법행정, pp.11~16 (2008), 사법행정학회
- 김성수, "중화인민공화국 민법제정과정의 서국동 교수의 녹색민법전초안의 불법행위에 관한 연구(2)", 사법행정, pp.21~ (2008), 사법행정학회
- 김성수, "중화인민공화국 민법제정과정의 양립신 교수의 불법행위책임법초안에 관한 연구(1)", 사법행정, pp.50~ (2007), 사법행정학회
- 김두수, "EU사법(I)", pp.292~ (2009), 한국외국어대학교출판부
- 신유철, "유럽불법행위법의 통일과 전망", 민사법학, (27), pp.213~256 (2005), 한국민사법학회
- 안경희, "EU 사법통일의 동향과 분석(2) - 불법행위법 -", pp.47~ (2007), 한국법제연구원
- 김천수, "한국 불법행위법에 관한 최근 입법 논의", 민사법학, 57, pp.3~39 (2011), 한국민사법학회
- 곽윤직, "채권각론(제6판)", pp.51~ (2007), 박영사
- 김재형, "인격권에 관한 입법제안", 민사법학, 57, pp.41~107 (2011), 한국민사법학회
- 이상태, "물권․채권 준별론을 취한 판텍텐체계의 현대적의의", pp.179~184 (2006), 건국대학교출판부
- 김재형, "제3자에 의한 채권침해, In 민법학의 현대적 양상, 나암서민교수정년기념논문집", pp.178~ (2006), 법문사
- 최흥섭, "제3자의 채권침해를 넘어(우리 법에서 제3자의 채권침해에 대한 의문), In 민사법의 현대적 과제와 전망, 남강서광민교수정년기념논문집", pp.370~ (2007), 두성사
- 內田貴, "特別座談會債權法の改正に向けて(上)-民法改正委員會の議論の現狀", ジュリスト, (1307), pp.103~ (2006)
- 박정기, "일본민법 개정작업의 최근동향", 법학논고, (33), pp.79~104 (2010), 법학연구원
- 北川善太郞, "債權各論(民法講要Ⅳ)", pp.299~ (2003), 有斐閣
- 淡路剛久, "債權總論", pp.207~ (2002), 有斐閣
- 김기선, "민법안 의견서", pp.199~ (1957), 일조각
- 이은영, "채권총론", pp.65~ (2006), 박영사
- 內田貴, , pp.181~ (2005), 東京大學出版會