부동산 계약과 부작위에 의한 사기
Real Property Contract and Fraud by Omission
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
A contract should be effective to support notification duty in real proprty contract. This is the presupposition of notification duty because notification duty does not occur if there is no effective contract. Because notification duty does not take place even though civil contract is established effective, the following factors other than contract should be satisfied. As to the contingent requirements, the theory of importance, the theory of dichotomy, and the theory of synthesis were conflicted with one another. These theories are divided, following, the first the possibility of substantial damage in property, the second the importance of decision process in real property sales, the third the way of how inexperience should be constituted. Seeing through these three contingent factors, the main requirement should be the possibility of substantial property damage because fraud is property crime. If this comes to be the only requirement for notification duty, in all the cases of property damage, notification duty occurs. With the requirement, the importance requirement in decisional process should be the standard for notification duty. Nonetheless, for the inexperience factor, those who take part in real property contract should check this information and take the burden of preventing property damage. Therefore, the inexperience factor should be excluded for the standard of individual decisional process. Therefore, because notification duty is essentially important factor for decisional process, it seems that notification duty takes place when there is lots of certainty that property damage occurs if a relevant fact was not notified.
Abstract
A contract should be effective to support notification duty in real proprty contract. This is the presupposition of notification duty because notification duty does not occur if there is no effective contract. Because notification duty does not take place even though civil contract is established effective, the following factors other than contract should be satisfied. As to the contingent requirements, the theory of importance, the theory of dichotomy, and the theory of synthesis were conflicted with one another. These theories are divided, following, the first the possibility of substantial damage in property, the second the importance of decision process in real property sales, the third the way of how inexperience should be constituted. Seeing through these three contingent factors, the main requirement should be the possibility of substantial property damage because fraud is property crime. If this comes to be the only requirement for notification duty, in all the cases of property damage, notification duty occurs. With the requirement, the importance requirement in decisional process should be the standard for notification duty. Nonetheless, for the inexperience factor, those who take part in real property contract should check this information and take the burden of preventing property damage. Therefore, the inexperience factor should be excluded for the standard of individual decisional process. Therefore, because notification duty is essentially important factor for decisional process, it seems that notification duty takes place when there is lots of certainty that property damage occurs if a relevant fact was not notified.
참고문헌 (70)
- 곽윤직, "민법총칙(제7중판)" (2006), 박영사
- 김성돈, "형법각론" (2008), 성균관대학교 출판부
- 김성돈, "형법총론" (2008), 성균관대학교 출판부
- 김형준, "김성천" (2006), 동현출판사
- 김성천, "형법총론(제4판)" (2008), 삼양애드
- 김일수, "한국형법Ⅲ(개정판)" (1997), 박영사
- 김일수, "새로쓴 형법각론(제5판)" (2004), 박영사
- 김일수, "새로쓴 형법총론(제11판)" (2006), 박영사
- 박상기, "형법각론(제6판)" (2005), 박영사
- 박상기, "형법총론(제6판)" (2005), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법각론(제6전정판)" (2006), 홍문사
- 배종대, "형법총론(제7판)" (2004), 홍문사
- 손동권, "형법각론" (2005), 율곡출판사
- 손동권, "형법총론(제2개정판)" (2005), 율곡출판사
- 손해목, "형법총론" (1996), 법문사
- 신동운, "형법총론" (2001), 법문사
- 오영근, "형법각론" (2006), 박영사
- 유기천, "형법학(각론강의 상)" (1978), 일조각
- 이재상, "형법각론(제5판)" (2006), 박영사
- 이재상, "형법총론(제5판 보정판)" (2005), 박영사
- 이형국, "형법각론연구Ⅰ" (1997), 법문사
- 임 웅, "형법각론(개정판)" (2005), 법문사
- 임 웅, "형법총론(개정판)" (2002), 법문사
- 정성근․박광민, "형법각론(제2판)" (2006), 삼지원
- 정성근, "형법총론" (2001), 삼지원
- 정영일, "형법각론" (2006), 박영사
- 조준현, "형법총론(개정판)" (2000), 법원사
- 진계호, "형법각론" (1996), 대왕사
- 권문택, "사기죄와 피해자의 교부행위", 논문집, 10 (1983), 충남대학교 법률행정 연구소
- 김봉태, "부작위범의 제문제 (1), 부작위범에 관한 판례연구", 법학연구, 38 (1988), 부산대학교법과대학법학연구소
- 김성천, "사기죄", 고시계, ~ (2002)
- 류화진, "부작위에 의한 사기죄 인정에 관한 비판적 고찰", 법학연구, 44(1), pp.305~ (2003), 부산대학교법학연구소
- 문채규, "부진정부작위범의 가벌성요건에 관한 고찰", 박사, pp.1992
- 박동희, "부작위범", 고시계, ~ (1976)
- 박상기, "사기죄와 재산개념", 고시계, 384, pp.55~64 (1989), 국가고시학회
- 박상열, "사기죄에 있어서 부작위에 의한 기망행위에 관한 연구, 특히 서독이론을 중심으로", 박사, pp.1989
- 안경옥, "독일 형법상의 계약관계에 있어서의 사기죄의 손해산정의 원칙과 기수시기", 형사법연구, 8 (1995), 한국형사법학회
- 안경옥, "부작위에 의한 기망", 영남법학, 8(1) (2002), 영남대학교 법학연구소
- 안경옥, "사기죄의 기수, 형사판례연구Ⅰ", pp.827~ (2003), 박영사
- 안경옥, "사기죄의 기수, 형사판례연구6", pp.315~ (1999), 박영사
- 양형우, "재산법과 신의성실의 원칙", 연세법학연구, 18(1) (2001), 연세법학회
- 이건호, "부작위범의 문제점 고찰", 고시계, 226, pp.12~19 (1975), 국가고시학회
- 이정원, "사기죄에서 '재산상 손해' 의 개념에 관한 연구", 비교형사법연구, 2(2) (2000), 한국비교형사법학회
- 임웅, "詐欺罪의 保護法益과 構成要件으로서의 財産上 損害", 성균관법학, 15(1), pp.94~111 (2003), 법학연구소
- 정대관, "부진정부작위범에 관한 연구, 특히 객관적 구성요건요소를 중심으로", 박사, pp.1991
- 정성근, "사기죄의 제문제", 경희법학, 19(1) (1984), 경희대학교 법학연구소
- 조 국, "방어적 긴급피난에서 상당성과 부작위범에서의 보증인적 지위", 고시계, ~ (2001)
- 천진호, "소취하와 사기죄에 있어서 재산적 처분행위", 비교형사법연구, 5(1) (2003), 비교형사법학회
- 하태훈, "사기죄의 부작위에 의한 기망행위", 홍대논총, 25 (1993)
- 大塚仁, "刑法槪說(總論)" (2005), 有斐閣
- 団藤重光, "刑法綱要總論" (1990), 創文社
- 藤木英雄, "刑法講義總論" (1975), 弘文堂
- 藤永幸治, "不動産犯罪" (1999), 東京法令出版
- 木村亀二, "全訂新刑法読本" (1967), 法文社
- 福田平, "田訂刑法總論(第四版)" (2004), 有斐閣
- 林幹人, "刑法總論" (2000), 東京大学出版会
- 荘子邦雄, "刑法總論" (1996), 青林書院
- 曽根威彦, "刑法總論(第三版)" (2000), 弘文堂
- 內田文昭, "不法な取引をめぐる詐欺罪の成否", 神奈川法学, 35(3) (2002), 神奈川大 学法学会
- 佐伯仁志, "保證人的地位の發生根據について, 刑事法學の課題と展望, 香川達 夫博士古稀祝賀" (1996), 成文堂
- 佐伯仁志, "不作爲犯論", 法學敎室, (288) (2004), 有斐閣
- Adolf Schönke, "Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar" (2006), C.H. Beck
- Baumann, "Ulrich, Lehrbuch AT, 9" (1985), Aufl
- Baumann, "Strafrecht AT, 11" (2003), Aufl
- Fritjof Haft, "Strafrecht AT, 7" (1998), Aufl
- Hans-Jörg Schwab, "Täterschaft und Teilnahme bei" (1996), P. Lang
- Harro. Otto, "Die Struktur des strafrechtlichen Vermögensschutzes" (1970), Duncker u. Humblot
- "Leipziger Kommentar, 11 Aufl", ~ (2000)
- Michael. Pawlik, "Das unerlaubte Verhalten beim Betrug" (1999), Heymanns
- Peter. Cramer, "Vermögensbegriff und Vermögensschaden im Strafrecht" (1968), Bad Homburg v. d. H.