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