商法總則․商行爲法 判例의 形成과 變遷
Analysis and Comments on the Supreme Court Cases Concerning General Provision and Commercial Transaction Under the Commercial Act
0
조회
0
다운로드
12
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article analyzes and makes critical comments on the supreme court cases concerning general provision and commercial transaction under the commercial act in korea. Firts of all, this paper selected the major eight topics. I liked to analysis an leading case of the each topic as well as to introduce it. Furthermore, I introduced the summarized contents of the representative ones selected in the succeeding cases which are related with the leading cases. The representative cases are introduced in this paper as the following:1. Merchant (Supreme Court Case 98da1584, Supreme Court Case 2006ma334)2. Commercial Agency (Supreme Court Case 78da1567, Supreme Court Case 83da107, Supreme Court Case 2007da23245)3. Commercial Name of Merchant (Supreme Court Case 92da42492, Supreme Court Case 96da24637)4. Liabilities of Name Lender (Supreme Court Case 88daka8354, Supreme Court Case 82daka887, Supreme Court Case 85daka2219, Supreme Court Case 97da55621, Supreme Court Case 88daka26390)5. Merge & Acquisition (Supreme Court Case 2007da17123, 17130, Supreme Court Case91다40276, Supreme Court Case 88daka10128)6. Commercial Registration (Supreme Court Case 74da1366, Supreme Court Case 2006da24100)7. Statute of Limitations in Commercial Contracts (Supreme Court Case 2000da5862, Supreme Court Case 79da1453, Supreme Court Case 93da21569, Supreme Court Case 2002da64957, 64964; Supreme Court Case 99da12376, Supreme Court Case 86daka2446, Supreme Court Case 94da38342)8. Entertainment Business Transaction (Supreme Court Case 93da43590, Supreme Court Case 98da37507)
Abstract
This article analyzes and makes critical comments on the supreme court cases concerning general provision and commercial transaction under the commercial act in korea. Firts of all, this paper selected the major eight topics. I liked to analysis an leading case of the each topic as well as to introduce it. Furthermore, I introduced the summarized contents of the representative ones selected in the succeeding cases which are related with the leading cases. The representative cases are introduced in this paper as the following:1. Merchant (Supreme Court Case 98da1584, Supreme Court Case 2006ma334)2. Commercial Agency (Supreme Court Case 78da1567, Supreme Court Case 83da107, Supreme Court Case 2007da23245)3. Commercial Name of Merchant (Supreme Court Case 92da42492, Supreme Court Case 96da24637)4. Liabilities of Name Lender (Supreme Court Case 88daka8354, Supreme Court Case 82daka887, Supreme Court Case 85daka2219, Supreme Court Case 97da55621, Supreme Court Case 88daka26390)5. Merge & Acquisition (Supreme Court Case 2007da17123, 17130, Supreme Court Case91다40276, Supreme Court Case 88daka10128)6. Commercial Registration (Supreme Court Case 74da1366, Supreme Court Case 2006da24100)7. Statute of Limitations in Commercial Contracts (Supreme Court Case 2000da5862, Supreme Court Case 79da1453, Supreme Court Case 93da21569, Supreme Court Case 2002da64957, 64964; Supreme Court Case 99da12376, Supreme Court Case 86daka2446, Supreme Court Case 94da38342)8. Entertainment Business Transaction (Supreme Court Case 93da43590, Supreme Court Case 98da37507)
참고문헌 (20)
- 강위두, "상법강의(상)" (2009), 형설출판사
- 이철송, "상법총칙·상행위" (2009), 박영사
- 정동윤, "상법(상)" (2000), 법문사
- 정찬형, "상법강의(상)" (2009), 박영사
- 권재열, "부분적 포괄대리권을 가진 사용인으로 오인될 만한 유사한 명칭을 사용한 사용인에 대한 상법 제14조의 유추적용가능성 검토 -대법원 2007.8.23. 선고 2007다23425 판결에 대한 평석-", 상사판례연구, 21(3), pp.33~56 (2008), 한국상사판례학회
- 김용대, "변호사 등 전문직업인의 상인성", 부산법조논집, (3) (2009), 부산지방변호사회
- 김택주, "공중접객업자의 책임", 상사판례연구, 10 (1999), 한국상사판례학회
- 박병대, "영업양도와 상호속용영업양수인의 책임. in: 상사판례연구(Ⅰ)" (1996), 박영사
- 신현윤, "2006년도 상법 판례의 회고와 전망 - 부분적 포괄대리권을 가진 상업사용인(제15조)을 중심으로 -", 상사판례연구, 20(1), pp.3~28 (2007), 한국상사판례학회
- 안수현, "2007년 상법총칙 상행위 판례회고", 상사판례연구, 20(4), pp.229~257 (2007), 한국상사판례학회
- 양승규, "상사판례(상)", 인권과 정의, (200) (1993), 대한변호사회
- 이용구, "영업양도와 근로관계", 노동법연구, (6) (1997), 서울대학교 노동법연구회
- 임재호, "상법총칙·상행위법의 입법체계", 상사판례연구, 14 (2003), 한국상사판례학회
- 임재호, "영업양도의 개념과 판단기준-대상판결:대법원 2005. 7. 22. 선고 2005다602 판결-", 법학연구, 48(1), pp.1163~1192 (2007), 법학연구소
- 임재호, "상법 제64조(상사시효)의 적용범위 ― 대상판결 : 대법원 2005. 5. 27. 선고 2005 다 7863 판결 ―", 법학연구, 47(2), pp.275~300 (2007), 법학연구소
- 정경영, "공중접객업자의 책임", 상사판례연구, 6 (1994), 한국상사판례학회
- 조정래, "영업양도와 상호속용 영업양수인의 책임", 판례연구, 10 (1999), 부산판례연구회
- 한기정, "상법 제24조 명의대여자 책임의 대리점 적용 문제. in: 상사판례연구 제Ⅶ권" (2007), 박영사
- 平出慶道, "質權者に支拂われた保險金の不當利得返還請求權の消滅時效期間", 私法判例リマクス, (1) (1990)
- 称永眞生, "株式会社の行為とその附属的商行為性" (2004), 弘文堂