개정주택임대차보호법과 전세안정화 정책
Revised Housing Lease Protection Act and the Policy for the Stable Lease Deposit
0
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
There can be no law regarding the stability of low socioeconomics other than the Housing Lease Protection Act that attracts interests of people. So comes many revisions with efforts to stabilize them. The lease deposit of the metropolitan area soared high for 61 consecutive weeks, though. The Housing Lease Protection Act revised on 13th of Aug. 2013 was the results of the efforts to stabilize as well. Especially this could be the extrapolation of the reform of the acts for the low socioeconomics by the Department of Justice. Although this revision was legislated by Assembly, it was based on Hearings in 2007 held by the government. Despite all these efforts, it is yet to be determined whether this might work. Aside from legal rightness, the key point of its success depends on practicality. The core countermeasure against rising lease deposit of this revision was the privileged satisfaction for a lease deposit claim of the banks which took over it from the lessee. Regarding this, there are two measures to accomplish this. The one is secured loan by the lessor, and the other is the transfer of the claim to return loan deposit. This study deals with the second one. This provides privileged satisfaction for a lease deposit claim of the banks so that the loan to the lessee could be a secured loan thus the interests could be lowered. This system could be applied under two circumstances; the moments of the conclusion of contract or the increase of the deposit and the termination of it. Before the revision, the loan was basically a credit loan, but when the banks took the claim it could be a secured loan thus lowering the interests and increasing the limit of the loan. It seems it is flawless legally though this supports the high deposits by strengthening the demand resulting in the soar of the deposit. The drawback of the revision is it depends on the loan to provide the high deposit and to secure the return of it. It could be a short-sighted policy. The results of this revision are yet to see because it was made recently and there is little use of it currently.
Abstract
There can be no law regarding the stability of low socioeconomics other than the Housing Lease Protection Act that attracts interests of people. So comes many revisions with efforts to stabilize them. The lease deposit of the metropolitan area soared high for 61 consecutive weeks, though. The Housing Lease Protection Act revised on 13th of Aug. 2013 was the results of the efforts to stabilize as well. Especially this could be the extrapolation of the reform of the acts for the low socioeconomics by the Department of Justice. Although this revision was legislated by Assembly, it was based on Hearings in 2007 held by the government. Despite all these efforts, it is yet to be determined whether this might work. Aside from legal rightness, the key point of its success depends on practicality. The core countermeasure against rising lease deposit of this revision was the privileged satisfaction for a lease deposit claim of the banks which took over it from the lessee. Regarding this, there are two measures to accomplish this. The one is secured loan by the lessor, and the other is the transfer of the claim to return loan deposit. This study deals with the second one. This provides privileged satisfaction for a lease deposit claim of the banks so that the loan to the lessee could be a secured loan thus the interests could be lowered. This system could be applied under two circumstances; the moments of the conclusion of contract or the increase of the deposit and the termination of it. Before the revision, the loan was basically a credit loan, but when the banks took the claim it could be a secured loan thus lowering the interests and increasing the limit of the loan. It seems it is flawless legally though this supports the high deposits by strengthening the demand resulting in the soar of the deposit. The drawback of the revision is it depends on the loan to provide the high deposit and to secure the return of it. It could be a short-sighted policy. The results of this revision are yet to see because it was made recently and there is little use of it currently.
참고문헌 (15)
- 곽윤직, ", 채권(8)" (2005), 박영사
- 김형석, "주택임대차보호법상 보증금반환채권의 분리양도와 양수인의 우선변제 - 大判 2010. 5. 27., 2010다10276 -", 법조, 60(5), pp.214~251 (2011), 법조협회
- 민일영, "주택의 경매와 임차인 보호에 관한 실무연구" (2005), 경인문화사
- 박해식, "임차보증금반환청구사건의 조정에 관한 일고찰", 실무논단 (1998), 서울지방법원
- 송덕수, "신민법강의" (2013), 박영사
- 장민, "미국통일주택임대차법에 관한 연구", 법학연구, 13(3), pp.213~246 (2010), 법학연구소
- 법무부, "임차인보호 및 권리를 강화한 주택⋅상가건물임대차보호법개정법률 시행", ~ (2013)
- 최성경, "전세자금대출제도와 전세금보장보험제도에 대한 법정책적 제언", 법과정책연구, 13(4), pp.1845~1874 (2013), 한국법정책학회
