본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

부동산 이중매도자의 형사책임

Criminal Responsibility for Real-Property Double-Selling

0

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

Real-property double-selling is the case that a seller sells a real property twice to each different buyer. Nonetheless, if one side contract of a double selling practice of real-property is void, it would not be taken as double selling. In contrast, if a contract has a cancellation cause, the contract would be valid if a party holding cancellation power does not use the power. Therefore, even though double-selling can stand with cancellation cause, the argument for double-selling looses power after a party cancels a contract retroactively. Contrarily, because, even when there is a cancellation cause in a buyer's side, the contracts is valid until the buyer uses cancellation power, the contracts can be considered as double-selling Our courts have considered the practice of real-property double-selling as a type of misappropriation. Nonetheless, an act of misappropriation shall be punished as a criminal act only when a person who takes care of another person's business breaches trust. The concept of another person's business can be divided into two categories, such as a business for another person and a business of another person. The criminal responsibility of misappropriation should be placed on a practice of double selling only for a business of another person. If not, every single contracting party can be considered to be a person who is doing a business for another person and then may have possibility to take criminal responsibility based on a guilt of misappropriation. In addition, a duty to cooperatively transfer names on a real-property register is a business for another person, but not a business of another person. It is because a register should be done in concert by both parties even though a seller took earnest money, part payment and the rest. A duty to cooperatively transfer names on a real-property register is not exhaustively a buyer's business but should be considered as a business of a seller as well as a business for a buyer. Therefore, it is not justifiable to punish a person who makes double-selling of real-property.

Abstract

Real-property double-selling is the case that a seller sells a real property twice to each different buyer. Nonetheless, if one side contract of a double selling practice of real-property is void, it would not be taken as double selling. In contrast, if a contract has a cancellation cause, the contract would be valid if a party holding cancellation power does not use the power. Therefore, even though double-selling can stand with cancellation cause, the argument for double-selling looses power after a party cancels a contract retroactively. Contrarily, because, even when there is a cancellation cause in a buyer's side, the contracts is valid until the buyer uses cancellation power, the contracts can be considered as double-selling Our courts have considered the practice of real-property double-selling as a type of misappropriation. Nonetheless, an act of misappropriation shall be punished as a criminal act only when a person who takes care of another person's business breaches trust. The concept of another person's business can be divided into two categories, such as a business for another person and a business of another person. The criminal responsibility of misappropriation should be placed on a practice of double selling only for a business of another person. If not, every single contracting party can be considered to be a person who is doing a business for another person and then may have possibility to take criminal responsibility based on a guilt of misappropriation. In addition, a duty to cooperatively transfer names on a real-property register is a business for another person, but not a business of another person. It is because a register should be done in concert by both parties even though a seller took earnest money, part payment and the rest. A duty to cooperatively transfer names on a real-property register is not exhaustively a buyer's business but should be considered as a business of a seller as well as a business for a buyer. Therefore, it is not justifiable to punish a person who makes double-selling of real-property.

참고문헌 (30)

  1. 김성천, "형법각론" (2006), 동현출판사
  2. 김일수, "한국형법Ⅲ" (1997), 박영사
  3. 김일수, "형법각론" (2004), 박영사
  4. 문형섭, "재산범죄론의 이해" (2006), 전남대학교 출판부
  5. 손동권, "형법각론" (2005), 율곡출판사
  6. 박상기, "형법각론" (2005), 박영사
  7. 배종대, "형법각론" (2003), 홍문사
  8. 이재상, "형법각론" (2006), 박영사
  9. 오영근, "형법각론" (2006), 박영사
  10. 이정원, "형법각론" (1999), 법지사
  11. 임웅, "형법각론" (2005), 법문사
  12. 이형국, "형법각론연구Ⅰ" (1997), 법문사
  13. 정성근, "형법각론" (2006), 삼지원
  14. 진계호, "형법각론" (1996), 대왕사
  15. 정영일, "형법각론" (2006), 박영사
  16. 조준현, "형법각론" (2005), 법원사
  17. 김용한, "부동산의 이중매매에 있어서의 문제점", 고시연구 (1987)
  18. 문형섭, "배임죄에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2001
  19. 문형섭, "배임죄의 본질과 주체의 범위", 법조, 52(1) (2002)
  20. 박양빈, "부동산의 이중매매와 형사책임", 고시연구 (1994)
  21. 손동권, "교사범의 성립요건, 부동산 이중매매자의 형사책임", 고시계 (2001)
  22. 손동권, "부동산 소유자에 의한 형법상의 재산범죄, 우리나라 대법원판례에 나타난 사안을 중심으로", 안암법학, 4 (1996), 안암법학회
  23. 이준현, "일제 강점 초기 조선고등법원에 의한 부동산 이중매매ㆍ이중저당의 법적처리, 조선고등법원판결록 제1~6권의 분석", 법사학연구, (28) (2003), 한국법사학회
  24. 임 웅, "부동산의 이중매매와 이중저당의 형사책임", 고시연구 (2000)
  25. 윤진수, "부동산의 이중양도에 관한 연구, 제일양수인의 원상회복 청구를 중심으로", 박사, pp.1993
  26. 정동기, "부동산이중매매의 형법적 고찰, 부동산법학의 제문제, 석하김기수화갑기념" (1992), 박영사
  27. 허일태, "부동산 이중매매와 배임죄", 형사법연구, 15 (2001), 한국형사법학회
  28. 土本武司, "民事と交錯すゐ刑事事件" (1999), 立花書房
  29. 藤永幸治, "不動産犯罪" (1999), 東京法令出版
  30. 本江威喜, "民商事と交錯する??犯罪Ⅰ" (1994), 立花書房

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)