抵當權과 附從性
Mortgage and Appendant Nature
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Conclusion of this Supreme Court decision is in compliance with the actual reality of transactions but logical courses of making such a conclusion is not proper. It is reality that there are many cases established like the same method of the precedent in transactions of real estates with shortage of transaction prices. Therefore, if we make a precedent of validity or invalidity of mortgages established in this method only from the viewpoint of ‘numerus clausus der Sachenrechte’ and appendant nature, there are dangers to lack validity in specific cases. However, we cannot discuss about validity by making an inference of unclear deliberation of related parties indefinitely. Therefore, it seems like right to provide customary laws validity regarding establishment of such a mortgage. Of course, we may need to have more researches and discussions about its functions, requirements, and limits through investigation of realities of transactions
Abstract
Conclusion of this Supreme Court decision is in compliance with the actual reality of transactions but logical courses of making such a conclusion is not proper. It is reality that there are many cases established like the same method of the precedent in transactions of real estates with shortage of transaction prices. Therefore, if we make a precedent of validity or invalidity of mortgages established in this method only from the viewpoint of ‘numerus clausus der Sachenrechte’ and appendant nature, there are dangers to lack validity in specific cases. However, we cannot discuss about validity by making an inference of unclear deliberation of related parties indefinitely. Therefore, it seems like right to provide customary laws validity regarding establishment of such a mortgage. Of course, we may need to have more researches and discussions about its functions, requirements, and limits through investigation of realities of transactions
참고문헌 (12)
- 이영준, (2004), 박영사
- 고상룡, "물권법" (2001), 법문사
- 김준호, "물권법" (2007), 법문사
- 이은영, "물권법" (2007), 박영사
- 배종근, "(실무강의)물권법" (2007), 동아대학교 출판부
- 곽윤직, "물권(4)" (2006), 박영사
- 이은영, "근저당권에 관한 연구", 저스티스, 30(1) (1997), 학국법학원
- 정옥태, "물적담보의 부종성’", 고시연구 (1992)
- 류창호, "근저당권의 부종성", 외법논집, 8 (2000), 한국외국어대학법학연구소
- 남영찬, "근저당권의 피담보채권과 부종성’", 민사재판의 제문제, 11 (2002), 한국사법행정학회
- 윤홍근, "‘근저당권의 부종성의 한계’in ?민사판례연구(ⅩⅩⅣ)?" (2002), 박영사
- 이동원, "저당권자와 채무자가 모두 제3자로 된 근저당권의 효력 in ?21세기 사법의 전개" (2005), 박영사