金融去來와 商事留置權
A study on the Merchant's Right of Retention
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Civil act provides for the right of retention as follows : If the possessor of a thing or valuable instruments belonging to another person has any claim arising, in respect of such property or instruments and if payment of the claim is due, he may retain possession of the thing or instruments until the claim is satisfied. On the other hand, commercial act provides for the right of retention between merchants. Right of Retention is statutory real right granted by way of security regardless of the purpose of parties concerned when the necessary conditions fulfilled. Despite their differences in terminology and application, there are a number of similarities between liens Korea and other countries. This lien granted by law is only based upon the principle of equity or fairness. Though the right of detention based upon equity is introduced in many countries since Roman law, the details are somewhat different in each countries. This right of detention is known to be originated in "exceptio doli" of the Roman law. The lien between merchants granted by commercial law is different in its purpose and function from the civil lien which is based upon equity originated in Roman law. The merchant lien is introduced in purpose of the speediness of commercial transactions and avoidance of the annoying of a particular securities originated in commercial practice of medieval Italian cities. Commercial law provides merchant lien in purpose of speediness and convenience of securities in commercial transactions, because the civil lien is not fit for the commercial securities due to the condition of the relevance between liabilities and the objectives. Consequently, this merchant lien is quite related to the banking transactions. Type of charge that gives a bank automatic claim over a borrower's property or assets that come in bank's possession in the normal course of its business. The bank has the right to seize and sell the defaulting borrower's property in its possession, after giving a reasonable notice but without going through the foreclosure procedure. Enforcement of a banker's lien, however, may depend on the type of the property and the reason it was handed over to (or came in possession of) the bank. Movable estate, negotiable securities and promissory notes may be claimed under this lien. But it is not applicable where the borrower's property was handed over to the bank for a specific purpose, such as for safe custody (as in the bank's safe deposit boxes) or for sale through a department of the bank. In this article, I tried to show the relation between the merchant lien and banking transactions, to comment to the some judicial precedents related.
Abstract
Civil act provides for the right of retention as follows : If the possessor of a thing or valuable instruments belonging to another person has any claim arising, in respect of such property or instruments and if payment of the claim is due, he may retain possession of the thing or instruments until the claim is satisfied. On the other hand, commercial act provides for the right of retention between merchants. Right of Retention is statutory real right granted by way of security regardless of the purpose of parties concerned when the necessary conditions fulfilled. Despite their differences in terminology and application, there are a number of similarities between liens Korea and other countries. This lien granted by law is only based upon the principle of equity or fairness. Though the right of detention based upon equity is introduced in many countries since Roman law, the details are somewhat different in each countries. This right of detention is known to be originated in "exceptio doli" of the Roman law. The lien between merchants granted by commercial law is different in its purpose and function from the civil lien which is based upon equity originated in Roman law. The merchant lien is introduced in purpose of the speediness of commercial transactions and avoidance of the annoying of a particular securities originated in commercial practice of medieval Italian cities. Commercial law provides merchant lien in purpose of speediness and convenience of securities in commercial transactions, because the civil lien is not fit for the commercial securities due to the condition of the relevance between liabilities and the objectives. Consequently, this merchant lien is quite related to the banking transactions. Type of charge that gives a bank automatic claim over a borrower's property or assets that come in bank's possession in the normal course of its business. The bank has the right to seize and sell the defaulting borrower's property in its possession, after giving a reasonable notice but without going through the foreclosure procedure. Enforcement of a banker's lien, however, may depend on the type of the property and the reason it was handed over to (or came in possession of) the bank. Movable estate, negotiable securities and promissory notes may be claimed under this lien. But it is not applicable where the borrower's property was handed over to the bank for a specific purpose, such as for safe custody (as in the bank's safe deposit boxes) or for sale through a department of the bank. In this article, I tried to show the relation between the merchant lien and banking transactions, to comment to the some judicial precedents related.
참고문헌 (16)
- 김재형, "민법총칙 제9판" (2013), 박영사
- 김형배, "민법학강의" (2008), 신조사
- 오시정, "여신실무법률(중)" (2012), 한국금융연수원
- 이기수, "상법총칙․상행위법" (2003), 박영사
- 이철송, "상법총칙∙상행위" (2013), 박영사
- 정동윤, "상법총칙․상행위법" (1996), 법문사
- 정찬형, "상법강의(상)(제16판)" (2013), 박영사
- 최기원, "상법학신론(상)" (2011), 박영사
- 최기원, "상법학원론" (2008), 박영사
- 한상문, "여신실무법률(상)" (2012), 한국금융연수원
- 西原寬一, "商行爲法" (1973), 有斐閣
- 西尾信一, "金融去來法" (2001), 法律文化社
- "金融商事判例 1382号", ~ (2012)
- 森下哲朗, "證券決濟", 金融法硏究, (25) (2009)
- 片岡宏一郞, "銀行去來約定書 今日的課題(上)", 金融法務事情, (1845) (2008)
