본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

부당한 재판관할약관에 대한 연구 - 대법원 2009.11.13. 자 2009마1482 결정에 대한 분석을 중심으로 -

A Study on inadequate litigation court clauses - focused on the supreme court case(2009Ma1482) -

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Nowadays standard contract terms take very important role in modern, mass product society, especially in the field of bank, purchase contract. Therefore, it happens very often that people confront problems with the use of inadequate standard contract terms. But the interest of the users can be neglected by the unfair standard contract terms about the litigation court. This study concentrates on analysing the contract terms about the litigation court. The contents of standard contract terms about litigation court should be valid in regard of korean unfair contract terms act and jurisdiction. Standard contract terms about litigation court has some problems. In regard of § 14 unfair contract terms act and its interpretation it is recommended that the contract terms should be revised in concord with the common interpretation of that article. The author has also analyzed court cases about litigation court. The burden of proof should also be valid in regard of § 14 korean unfair contract terms act. Finally, some standard contract terms of litigation court is too vague. Therefore, it should be defined more clearly. The standard contract terms about litigation court, in short, has some problems. It should be enforced clearly afterwards. Then we can avoid unnecessary disputes.

Abstract

Nowadays standard contract terms take very important role in modern, mass product society, especially in the field of bank, purchase contract. Therefore, it happens very often that people confront problems with the use of inadequate standard contract terms. But the interest of the users can be neglected by the unfair standard contract terms about the litigation court. This study concentrates on analysing the contract terms about the litigation court. The contents of standard contract terms about litigation court should be valid in regard of korean unfair contract terms act and jurisdiction. Standard contract terms about litigation court has some problems. In regard of § 14 unfair contract terms act and its interpretation it is recommended that the contract terms should be revised in concord with the common interpretation of that article. The author has also analyzed court cases about litigation court. The burden of proof should also be valid in regard of § 14 korean unfair contract terms act. Finally, some standard contract terms of litigation court is too vague. Therefore, it should be defined more clearly. The standard contract terms about litigation court, in short, has some problems. It should be enforced clearly afterwards. Then we can avoid unnecessary disputes.

참고문헌 (17)

  1. 강현중, "민사소송법" (1997), 박영사
  2. 공정거래위원회, "외국 약관제도 해설(독일, 프랑스 편)" (1999)
  3. 공정거래위원회, "약관규제의 실제" (2008)
  4. 권대우, "약관의 부당성 규제", 서강법학연구, 3 (2001)
  5. 권오승, "「소비자보호법」 제4판" (2002), 법문사
  6. 권효상, "한국에서의 법무보험의 정착가능성 — 보험약관의 면·부책과 사례를 중심으로 —", 경영법률, 20(3), pp.263~294 (2010), 한국경영법률학회
  7. 김병운, "약관에 의한 관할합의의 효력", 한국민사소송법학회지, (2) (1999)
  8. 박상용, "경제법원론" (2006), 박영사
  9. 이기수, "「경제법」 제8판" (2009), 세창출판사
  10. 이은영, "약관규제론" (1984), 박영사
  11. 이은영, "약관규제법" (1994), 박영사
  12. 정동윤, "민사소송법" (1991), 법문사
  13. 정호열, "경제법" (2006), 박영사
  14. 한종열, "민사소송법(상)" (1995), 대학출판사
  15. "Deutsch", Ahrens, Deliktsrecht, 5. Aufl., Köln, 2009
  16. "Larenz", Wolf, Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Rechts, 9. Aufl., München, 2004
  17. "Wolf", Horn, pp.1999, ~

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)