물권적 청구권

Abstract

According to Article 204, Paragraph 1 of Civil Act, when there is a possession within the territory of the other party despite of the case of an invasion by a natural phenomenon, even if the other party does not intend to occupy it, it can be interpreted that one can ask for the return of that possession. According to Article 213 (1) of the Civil Act, occupiers will be able to broadly interpret or apply analogies, including those who possess rights, as well as those who have control over the object. Since the right to claim is derived from the right of the right to claim, even if it is not a pure bond, it appears to be a bond property in terms of exercising the right to the infringer. Therefore, bonds can not be used in terms of rights arising from the right of ownership, but bonds are used in terms of rights to claim certain acts against the other party. In the case of the right to claim for the right of return, the other party who is the debtor is obliged to fulfill the obligations, and the claimant who is the creditor must be received directly from the place where the object exists. In the case of a claim for exclusion of disturbance, it should be interpreted that the other person who is the debtor should remove the disturbance directly and that the other person who is the debtor should also take preventive measures directly. The court also orders the person to take delivery of the object, remove the obstruction, or take precautions to prevent interference. Specifically, the person who is the debtor does not order the applicant to go to the address of the creditor. In other words, the relationship with the other party has the nature of claim as a claim, so the bond law is a problem to be resolved according to individual regulations. If the legal nature of the right to claim is regarded as a bond that is equivalent to the right of the claim, the relationship with the other side will have a bond nature to claim a certain act. In this case, The obligor is obliged to receive the object at the place of the object, and the obligation (the claim for exclusion of disturbance) is to be fulfilled by the debtor. In the case of traditional behavior claims, we understand the problem of the right to claim and the burden of cost. However, the problem of cost burden does not come from Articles 204, 213 and 214 of the Civil Law , The result is not considered unreasonable even if the contention or conflict between the claim for return of object and the claim for exclusion of obstruction is recognized. According to the precedent, the right of claim is the right to claim the act of the other party, but it is understood that the problem of the cost burden is determined by the illegal act, contract law or other responsibility principle as a separate matter. In this respect, the precedent is not the position of traditional behavior claims. It is desirable that the prohibition of relief by legitimate owners is merely to constitute illegal acts, so it is desirable that the right of claim for illegal occupants can not be exercised against the rightful owner. Except for the permitted relief, the other party can request the exclusion of disturbance and can not relieve himself or herself directly. However, there are many cases where it is necessary to allow the relief of exclusion of disturbance under the New Ordinance.