담보로 제공된 명의신탁 승용차를 몰래 가져간 명의신탁자의 형사책임
Criminal Responsibility of Title Truster Who Carried Away Secretly the in-Title-Trust-Given Car That Had been Offered As Security
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Title truster gave the car which he had bought in title trust and offered it to his creditor as security. One day title truster carried away the car before his creditor knew. The Supreme Court ruled that title truster’s act constituted theft because the car’s owner was title trustee externally(2010Do11771). But title truster’s creditor was not the man, “the third” who entered into a connection with title trustee on the ground that on the basis that title trustee was the owner of the car. There was not external relation of title trust in this case. So title truster having real rights about the car was to be the owner of the car. Therefore the act of title truster should constitute obstruction of exercise of his creditor’s right. This paper consists as follows. [Decision] Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11771 decided April 26, 2012[Study]Ⅰ. Issue raising Ⅱ. The owner of title trust object according to the title trust theory Ⅲ. The owner of title trust object according to the legal interest Ⅳ. Criminal responsibility of title truster Gap(甲)Ⅴ. Epilogue
Abstract
Title truster gave the car which he had bought in title trust and offered it to his creditor as security. One day title truster carried away the car before his creditor knew. The Supreme Court ruled that title truster’s act constituted theft because the car’s owner was title trustee externally(2010Do11771). But title truster’s creditor was not the man, “the third” who entered into a connection with title trustee on the ground that on the basis that title trustee was the owner of the car. There was not external relation of title trust in this case. So title truster having real rights about the car was to be the owner of the car. Therefore the act of title truster should constitute obstruction of exercise of his creditor’s right. This paper consists as follows. [Decision] Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11771 decided April 26, 2012[Study]Ⅰ. Issue raising Ⅱ. The owner of title trust object according to the title trust theory Ⅲ. The owner of title trust object according to the legal interest Ⅳ. Criminal responsibility of title truster Gap(甲)Ⅴ. Epilogue
참고문헌 (25)
- 김태업, "동산의 양도담보권자가 채무자의 점유 아래 있는 담보목적물을 매각하고 목적물반환청구권을 양도한 다음 매수인으로 하여금 목적물을 취거하게 한 경우, 절도죄의 성립 여부", 대법원판례해설, (78) (2009)
- 김홍엽, "민사집행법" (2011)
- 박동진, "부동산실명법 제4조에 의한 부동산명의신탁의 효력", 저스티스, 32(3) (1999)
- 법무부, "독일형법" (2008)
- 법무부조사국, "법무자료 제5집" (1948)
- 송덕수, "물권법" (2012), 박영사
- 송덕수, "신민법강의(제4판)" (2011)
- 양창수, "부동산실명법 제4조에 의한 명의신탁의 효력: 소위 등기명의신탁을 중심으로", 서울대학교 법학, 38(1) (1997)
- 양창수, "민법 Ⅲ: 권리의 보전과 담보" (2012)
- 유기천, "형법학〔각론강의 상〕(전정신판)" (1995)
- 이동신, "배우자에게 명의신탁한 부동산이 권리행사방해죄에서 말하는 ‘자기의 물건’에 해당하는지 여부", 대법원판례해설, (59) (2006)
- 이영준, "物權法" (2009), 博英社
- 이은영, "민법Ⅰ(제4판)" (2005)
- 이재상, "형법각론(제8판)" (2012)
- 이창섭, "부동산 명의수탁자의 횡령죄 주체성", 형사판례연구, 19, pp.236~265 (2011), 한국형사판례연구회
- 임건면, "契約登記名義信託을 둘러싼 몇 가지 法律的 爭點에 대한 검토", 성균관법학, 23(3), pp.111~141 (2011), 법학연구소
- 임웅, "형법각론(제4정판)" (2012)
- 재정경제원, "부동산실명법 해설" (1995)
- 최관식, "명의신탁 자동차에 대한 절도죄", 법률신문 2008년 1월 21일자, ~ (2008)
- Joecks, Wolfgang, "Strafgesetzbuch: Studienkommentar, 3.Aufl." (2001)
- "국가법령정보센터"[URL]
- "대법원"[URL]
- "종합법률정보"[URL]
- "전자헌법재판센터"[URL]
- "dejure. org"[URL]