第3者에 의한 債權侵害의 類型的 考察
Typical Inquiry on the Infringement of Obligation by third Person
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The majority view on the infringement of obligation classify the types as infringement on the reversion of the obligation itself, infringement on the payment of the obligation’s purpose (i.e., both obligation is being extinguished and obligation is not being extinguished), and decrease debtor’s general assets. Above types are too ideological to know and can not reflect various dispute pattern in the real world, and the analysis of the category also is not sufficient for the recognition of torts. In addition, there are some arguments that the researcher drive a conclusion without sufficient examinations regarding the relativity of obligation, the honoring the debtor’s free will, the equal treatment of the creditor, the principles of free competition. In Japan, a new approach challenged in the 1980s induced more appropriate typology at the realistic transactions against traditional aspect and tried to expand the possibility of the infringement of obligation by the third person. In Korea, there are little appeared the marks of attempting to categorization of the claims but these testings were so comprehensive and no concrete study advanced. In order to overcome this point at issue, I suggest new classification of the obligation infringement considering expansion of the diverse contract relationships as well as many sided realistic agreements and included not only mere claims but also whole contractual interest for the grouping. Moreover, the future contractual relations were also incorporated in this proposal package. Accordingly, a subjective aspect of the third person within the types and requirements of the torts are argued and Korean court cases also covered in this work. Hopefully, this piece will contribute new understanding on the classification of the complex infringement of obligation to the practice and learned circles.
Abstract
The majority view on the infringement of obligation classify the types as infringement on the reversion of the obligation itself, infringement on the payment of the obligation’s purpose (i.e., both obligation is being extinguished and obligation is not being extinguished), and decrease debtor’s general assets. Above types are too ideological to know and can not reflect various dispute pattern in the real world, and the analysis of the category also is not sufficient for the recognition of torts. In addition, there are some arguments that the researcher drive a conclusion without sufficient examinations regarding the relativity of obligation, the honoring the debtor’s free will, the equal treatment of the creditor, the principles of free competition. In Japan, a new approach challenged in the 1980s induced more appropriate typology at the realistic transactions against traditional aspect and tried to expand the possibility of the infringement of obligation by the third person. In Korea, there are little appeared the marks of attempting to categorization of the claims but these testings were so comprehensive and no concrete study advanced. In order to overcome this point at issue, I suggest new classification of the obligation infringement considering expansion of the diverse contract relationships as well as many sided realistic agreements and included not only mere claims but also whole contractual interest for the grouping. Moreover, the future contractual relations were also incorporated in this proposal package. Accordingly, a subjective aspect of the third person within the types and requirements of the torts are argued and Korean court cases also covered in this work. Hopefully, this piece will contribute new understanding on the classification of the complex infringement of obligation to the practice and learned circles.
참고문헌 (54)
- 김상용, "채권총론" (2009), 화산미디어
- 김대정, "채권총론" (2006), fides
- 김상용, "채권총론" (2009), 화산미디어
- 김용한, "채권법총론" (1983), 박영사
- 김주수, "채권총론(민법강의Ⅲ)" (2003), 삼영사
- 김증한, "채권총론" (1998), 박영사
- 김형배, "채권총론" (1998), 박영사
- 박영규, "지적소유권법(상)(하)" (2008), 육법사
- 안원모, "특허권의 침해와 손해배상" (2005), 세창출판사
- 김상용, "채권총론" (2009), 화산미디어
- 이은영, "채권총론" (2006), 박영사
- 이호정, "채권총론" (1985), 한국방송통신대학
- 장경학, "채권총론" (1994), 교육과학사
- 장재현, "채권법총론" (2006), 경북대학교출판부
- 김상용, "채권총론" (2009), 화산미디어
- 하경효, "노동법사례연습 제2판(보정판)" (2008), 박영사
- 구남수, "제3자의 채권침해로 인한 불법행위 성립과 손해배상의 범위", 판례연구 (1997), 부산판례연구회
- 김상중, "잘못된 정보에 따른 직업전문가의 제3자에 대한 책임", 민사법학, (25), pp.3~38 (2004), 한국민사법학회
- 김재형, "제3자에 의한 채권침해, In 나암서민교수정년기념논문집, 민법학의현대적양상" (2006), 법문사
- 김재형, (2010), 사법발전재단
- 김현선, "日本 民法上의 第3者에 의한 債權侵害 - 학설의 발전과정과 새로운 유형화의 논의를 중심으로 -", 동아법학, (52), pp.569~603 (2011), 법학연구소
- 박흥대, "제3자의 계약침해와 불법행위", 판례연구, 15 (2004), 부산판례연구회
- 배성호, "자유경쟁과 채권침해, In 판례실무연구Ⅸ" (2010), 사법발전재단
- 소재선, "공인회계사의 민사책임", 민사법학, (23) (2003), 한국민사법학회
- 양창수, "2007년 분야별 중요판례분석", 법률신문, ~ (2008)
- 어인의, "제3자의 채권침해 In 한국 민사법학의 현대적 전개" (1991), 배경숙교수화갑기념논문집
- 엄동섭, "영미법상 제3자의 계약침해", 민사법학, (27), pp.177~212 (2005), 한국민사법학회
- 윤근수, "제3자에 의한 채권침해", 판례연구, 20 (2009), 부산판례연구회
- 윤진수, "제3자의 채권침해와 부동산의 이중양도", 사법논집 제16집 (1985), 법원행정처
- 이규호, "미국에 있어서 소비자 보이코트에 관한 판례ㆍ학설", 판례실무연구(Ⅴ) (2001)
- 전경근, "간접피해자의 손해배상청구", 법문사 (2002), 일헌최병욱교수정년기념논문집(현대민사법연구)
- 조영선, "특허실시권자의 손해배상 및 금지청구권", 저스티스, (110)통권 : 110, pp.83~120 (2009), 한국법학원
- 최흥섭, "제3자의 채권침해를 넘어(우리 법에서 제3자의 채권침해에 대한 의문), In 남강서광민교수정년기념논문집" (2007)
- 최홍섭, "전문가의 제3자에 대한 정보책임", 재산법연구, 11(1) (1994), 한국재산법학회
- 하경효, "영업상의 비밀과 직업선택의 자유－인력스카웃에 따른 법률문제－", 경영계 (2000), 한국경영자총협회
- 양삼승, "손해배상범위에 관한 기초적 연구", 박사, pp.1988
- 김현선, "제3자에 의한 채권침해에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2011
- 內田貴, "民法Ⅲ, 第3版 債權總論ㆍ擔保物權" (2005), 東京大學出版會
- 勝本正晃, "債權總論上卷" (1930), 巖松堂
- 澤井裕, "(テキストブック)事務管理ㆍ不當利得ㆍ不法行爲" (2001), 有斐閣
- 澤井裕, "(テキストブック)債權總論" (1980), 有斐閣
- 中田裕康, "債權總論" (2008), 岩波書店
- 中山信弘, "注解特許法(第三版) 上卷" (2000), 靑林書院
- 新美育文, "民法講座4" (1985), 有斐閣
- 平井宜雄, "債權總論" (1994), 弘文堂
- 平野裕之, "債權總論" (2005), 信山社出版
- 星野英一, "民法槪論Ⅲ(債權總論)" (1978), 良書普及会
- 前田達明, "口述債權總論(第3版)" (1993), 成文堂
- 吉田邦彦, "債權侵害論再考" (1991), 有斐閣
- 我妻榮, "債權總論(民法講義 Ⅳ)" (1940), 岩波書店
- 磯村保, "二重賣買と債權侵害-自由競爭論の神話-(1)∼(3)", 神戶法學雜誌, 35(2) (1986)
- 三島宗彦, "第3者の債權侵害", 總合判例硏究叢書(18) (1962), 有斐閣
- J. Dukeminier, "Krier, Property" (2002), Little, Brown
- W. L. Prosser, "Keeton, On the law of Torts" (1984), WestPub., c