2010년 상법총칙·상행위법 판례의 동향과 그 연구
Study on the Case Law Concerning General Provision and Commercial Transaction under the Commercial Act in 2010
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper is to study and analyze some important cases held by the Korean Supreme in 2010 concerning general provision and commercial transaction under the Commercial Act. This paper selected the representative five cases among several imporatnt cases in 2010. The representative cases are introduced in this paper as the followings. First, the Supreme Court of Korea did not apply the commercial expired period to a claim against unjust enrichment. Second, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged the liability of transferee of business mark according to the transference of business in the code of Korean Commercial. Third, the Supreme Court of Korea clarified the duty to explain of financial institutions. Forth, the Supreme Court of Korea construed the acquisition cause of Commercial Lien. Fifth, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged claim for remuneration under Korean Commercial Act §61.
Abstract
This paper is to study and analyze some important cases held by the Korean Supreme in 2010 concerning general provision and commercial transaction under the Commercial Act. This paper selected the representative five cases among several imporatnt cases in 2010. The representative cases are introduced in this paper as the followings. First, the Supreme Court of Korea did not apply the commercial expired period to a claim against unjust enrichment. Second, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged the liability of transferee of business mark according to the transference of business in the code of Korean Commercial. Third, the Supreme Court of Korea clarified the duty to explain of financial institutions. Forth, the Supreme Court of Korea construed the acquisition cause of Commercial Lien. Fifth, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged claim for remuneration under Korean Commercial Act §61.
참고문헌 (24)
- 곽윤직, "민법주해(XⅤ)" (1992), 박영사
- 곽윤직, "민법주해(ⅩⅦ)" (1992), 박영사
- 권순일, "증권회사의 고객에 대한 보호의무", 민사재판의 제문제, 10 (2003), 한국사법행정학회
- 김대규, "유럽사법재판소의 ‘하이닝어(Heininger)’判定과 消費者撤回權에 관한 獨逸民法의 改正", 비교사법, 10(2), pp.239~264 (2003), 한국비교사법학회
- 김진환, "약관의 계약편입과 전자약관", 법조, 50(6)
- 김택주, "利益保障約定에 의한 證券去來와 投資者保護", 상사법연구, 21(2), pp.12~481 (2002), 한국상사법학회
- 박병대, "영업양도와 상호속용 영업양수인의 책임 in:「상사판례연구」제1권" (1989), 박영사
- 성희활, "금융투자상품의 투자권유규제에서 적합성원칙과 설명의무", 인권과 정의, (389), pp.56~79 (2009), 대한변호사협회
- 송평근, "무효인 보증보험계약에 기초한 급부가 이루어짐에 따라 발생한 부당이득반환청구권에 대하여 상사소멸시효가 적용되는지", 대법원판례해설, (67) (2007), 법원도서관
- 이동신, "상법상 영업양도의 의미와 그 판단기준 및 이에 관한 사례", 대법원판례해설, (57) (2006), 법원도서관
- 이기수, "상법총칙·상행위법" (2003), 박영사
- 김정호, "상법총칙·상행위법" (2008), 法文社
- 임재호, "2009년 상법총칙·상행위법 판례의 법리와 분석", 상사판례연구, 23(3), pp.355~395 (2010), 한국상사판례학회
- 정찬형, "상법강의(상)(제14판)" (2011), 박영사
- 조정래, "영업양도와 상호속용 영업양수인의 책임", 판례연구, 10 (1999), 부산판례연구회
- 장덕조, "合理的期待原則과 保險約款의 本質論", 기업법연구, 20(4), pp.235~252 (2006), 한국기업법학회
- 채이식, "상법강의(상)" (1996), 박영사
- 최기원, "상법학신론(상)" (1996), 박영사
- 최승재, "고객보호의무법리에 대한 연구", 증권법연구, 11(1), pp.1~41 (2010), 한국증권법학회
- 황진구, "상사유치권의 성립요건에 관한 검토 in:「민사판례연구」제24권" (2000), 박영사
- Howard Ende, "Liability Insurance: A Primer for College and University Counsel", J.C. & U. L, 23 (1997)
- Jeffrey Davis, "Revamping Consumer-Credit Contract Law", Va. L. Rev, 68, pp.1333~ (1982)
- T.D. Rakoff, "Contracts of Adhesion: An Essay in Reconstruction", HARV. L. REV, 96 (1983), An Essay in Reconstruction,96 HARV.L.REV
- "Westlaw On Line Data Base"[URL]