금지(유지)청구권의 일반근거규정 도입에 관한 연구
A study on the general introduction of injunctive relief in the civil litigation
0
조회
0
다운로드
17
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In Korea, there is no general statutory authority to the injunctive relief exceptfor the individual ones to protect the respective rights. Therefore courts can notprovide injunction with the victims from whom can be taken their rights away. Itcreates a loophole in protecting rights from the interference. Sometimes the Korean Supreme Court has been trying to award injunction to thevictims without any statutory authorities. The Court made a ruling over theinjunctive protection to invade the human dignity, environmental rights, businessinterest etc. And the Korean Ministry of Justice has been preparing some bills forthe legislation to award the injunctive protection to all types of rights. Howeverthe new bills are based on the understanding that the legislation should bestipulated in the damages chapter of the Korean Civil Code. As we know, theinjunction is superior to the damages from the viewpoint of Law&Economics. Because it will induce people to engage in the voluntary exchanges to enhance theallocative efficiency as a whole for the society. So I insist that we stipulate the general statutory authorities independent fromdamages and the clause should include some requirements of irreparable damagesand undue hardship. But the requirement “irreparable injury should mean theadequacy of injunctive relief, not meaning any yield to the damages.
Abstract
In Korea, there is no general statutory authority to the injunctive relief exceptfor the individual ones to protect the respective rights. Therefore courts can notprovide injunction with the victims from whom can be taken their rights away. Itcreates a loophole in protecting rights from the interference. Sometimes the Korean Supreme Court has been trying to award injunction to thevictims without any statutory authorities. The Court made a ruling over theinjunctive protection to invade the human dignity, environmental rights, businessinterest etc. And the Korean Ministry of Justice has been preparing some bills forthe legislation to award the injunctive protection to all types of rights. Howeverthe new bills are based on the understanding that the legislation should bestipulated in the damages chapter of the Korean Civil Code. As we know, theinjunction is superior to the damages from the viewpoint of Law&Economics. Because it will induce people to engage in the voluntary exchanges to enhance theallocative efficiency as a whole for the society. So I insist that we stipulate the general statutory authorities independent fromdamages and the clause should include some requirements of irreparable damagesand undue hardship. But the requirement “irreparable injury should mean theadequacy of injunctive relief, not meaning any yield to the damages.
참고문헌 (28)
- 김도균, "권리의 문법-도덕적 권리 ․ 인권 ․ 법적권리" (2008), 박영사
- 이시윤, "신민사집행법" (2009), 박영사
- 이철송, "회사법강의" (2010), 박영사
- 지원림, "민법강의" (2008), 홍문사
- 김관식, "인터넷상에서 광고의 차단ㆍ삽입과 그 법적문제 - 지적재산권법과 불법행위법의 경계 -", 비교사법, 17(3), pp.405~450 (2010), 한국비교사법학회
- 김상중, "불법행위에 대한 금지청구권 규정의 신설 제안", 민사법학, 55(1), pp.177~233 (2011), 한국민사법학회
- 김상중, "불법행위의 사전적 구제수단으로서 금지청구권의 소고 - 대법원 2010.8.25.자 2008마1541 결정에 관한 평석 -", 비교사법, 17(4), pp.141~172 (2010), 한국비교사법학회
- 김일중, "과잉범죄화의 법경제학적 분석-공정거래 분야를 중심으로-" (2013), 한국경제연구원
- 김재형, "언론에 의한 인격적 침해에 대한 구제수단", 인권과 정의, (339), pp.68~94 (2004), 대한변호사협회
- 김종현, "금지청구권의 허용을 위한 기준", 법학평론, 2 (2011)
- 김차동, "민사적 구제수단(私的執行)의 행정·형사적 구제수단(公的執行)에 대한 비교우위", 법학논총, 31(1), pp.447~470 (2014), 법학연구소
- 김차동, "금지(유지)청구권에 관한 비교법적 고찰 –대한민국과 미국을 중심으로–", 법학논총, 26(4), pp.221~237 (2009), 법학연구소
- 김차동, "금지청구권의 요건사실에 관한 법경제학적 검토", 법경제학연구, 7(1), pp.81~106 (2010), 한국법경제학회
- 손해배상제도 및 금지(유지)청구제도의 운용에 관한 법경제학적 분석, "김차동", 법원행정처, ~ (2009)
- 송오식, "불법행위의 효과로서 금지 및 예방청구권 －대법원 2010. 8. 25.자 2008마1541 결정－", 법학논총, 31(1), pp.519~558 (2011), 법학연구소
- 양창수, "손해배상의 범위와 방법", 손해배상책임의 내용, 1997, pp.(15), ~
- 엄동섭, "불법행위법의 개정", 민사법학, 60, pp.97~149 (2012), 한국민사법학회
- 위계찬, "불법행위의 금지청구권", 강원법학, 33, pp.247~280 (2011), 비교법학연구소
- 이연갑, "법인의 업무방해에 대한 금지청구", 민사판례연구, (34), pp.551~572 (2012), 민사판례연구회
- 태기정, "계약해제효과와 원상회복의무 - 대법원 2012. 12. 27.선고 2012다60954 판결관련 -", 법학논고, (45), pp.389~424 (2014), 법학연구원
- 한국민사법학회 민법개정안연구소위원회, "불법행위법 개정안 의견서", 민사법학, (15) (1997)
- 허만, "민사판례연구" (1999)
- Calabresi, "Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral", Harv. L. Rev, 85, pp.1089~ (1972)
- Douglas Laycock, "Modern American Remedies" (1994), Aspen Publishers Inc
- Douglas Laycock, "The death of the irreparable injury rule" (1991), Oxford Univ. Press
- Robert D. Cooter, "Law&Economics" (2008)
- 田中英夫, "英美法辭典" (2000), 동경대학교출판회
- "Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., Inc.사건(26 N.Y. 2d. 219; 309 N.Y.S. 2d. 312; 257 N.E. 2d 870)", ~ (1970)