2011년 상법총칙·상행위법 판례의 회고
Reminiscences about the Supreme Court Cases Decided in 2011 Concerning the General Provisions and Law of Commercial Activities of the Commercial Act
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In 2011, the Supreme Court decided that the office of an attorney-at-law is not regarded as the place of business as long as he is not a merchant to whom the Commercial Act is applied. However, the difference between the nature of services supplied by an attorney and that supplied by a merchant is so unclear that the Commercial Act may be applied to an attorney in the future. The Court also declared that the liability of the person who lent his name and the person who borrowed the name is joint and several. According to the decision of the Court, a proprietor of a business cannot commit the crime of embezzlement since he is not a manager of assets belonged to other persons. In addition, the Court decided that from the perspective of law, the inner structure of the undisclosed association is not the same as that of Innengesellschaft. The Court's instruction does not coincide in opinion of the majority of law scholars. The Court tells that a quasi-commission agent is considered a trustee of trust relationship. However, the treatment of him as a trustee cannot explain the legal meaning of the article 103 of the Commercial Act.
Abstract
In 2011, the Supreme Court decided that the office of an attorney-at-law is not regarded as the place of business as long as he is not a merchant to whom the Commercial Act is applied. However, the difference between the nature of services supplied by an attorney and that supplied by a merchant is so unclear that the Commercial Act may be applied to an attorney in the future. The Court also declared that the liability of the person who lent his name and the person who borrowed the name is joint and several. According to the decision of the Court, a proprietor of a business cannot commit the crime of embezzlement since he is not a manager of assets belonged to other persons. In addition, the Court decided that from the perspective of law, the inner structure of the undisclosed association is not the same as that of Innengesellschaft. The Court's instruction does not coincide in opinion of the majority of law scholars. The Court tells that a quasi-commission agent is considered a trustee of trust relationship. However, the treatment of him as a trustee cannot explain the legal meaning of the article 103 of the Commercial Act.
참고문헌 (22)
- 김건일, "내적 조합의 세법상 취급, In 대법원판례해설 제24호" (1996), 법원도서관
- 김상용, "채권각론" (2009), 화산미디어
- 김선광, "방송의 상행위성에 관한 소고", 경영법률, 21(2), pp.33~59 (2011), 한국경영법률학회
- 김성태, "강론 제2판" (2002), 법문사
- 김용대, "위탁매매 또는 대리인에 의한 매매와 재화의 공급, In 조세판례백선" (2005), 박영사
- 박경재, "변호사의 법적 지위와 변호사보수계약", 법학연구, 51(1), pp.921~950 (2010), 법학연구소
- 박경재, "변호사의 상인성", 법조, 60(4), pp.119~157 (2011), 법조협회
- 박경재, "변호사는 의제상인이 아닌가", 법학논고, (36), pp.107~130 (2011), 법학연구원
- 박준서, "§703-749 제3판" (2002), 한국사법행정학회
- 배호근, "익명조합, 민법상의 조합 및 내적 조합의 구별, In 상사판례연구 제Ⅰ권" (1996), 박영사
- 서울대학교 법과대학, "변호사의 직업윤리와 의무, In 법률가의 윤리와 책임" (2007), 박영사
- 안수현, "2008년 상법총칙ㆍ상행위 판례회고", 상사판례연구, 21(4), pp.435~478 (2008), 한국상사판례학회
- 이상원, "내적조합과 민법 제713조의 유추적용여부, In 대법원판례해설 제2호" (1988), 법원도서관
- 이영종, "상법의 적용범위에 관한 비판적 검토 - 대법원 2008.6.26. 선고 2007마996결정을 중심으로 -", 상사판례연구, 24(4), pp.3~44 (2011), 한국상사판례학회
- 이철송, "상법총칙·상행위 제9판" (2010), 박영사
- 임재호, "商法總則․商行爲法 判例의 形成과 變遷", 상사판례연구, 23(1), pp.3~61 (2010), 한국상사판례학회
- 임홍근, "영업과 기업, In 상사법의 기본문제(해암 이범찬 교수 화갑기념)" (1993), 삼영사
- 정형근, "변호사 직무의 공공성", 한양법학, (30), pp.195~221 (2010), 한양법학회
- 최준선, "위탁매매인의 법률관계, In 상사판례연구 제Ⅰ권" (1996), 박영사
- 최준선, "상법총칙·상행위법 제7판" (2011), 삼영사
- 황남석, "변호사의 상인성에 관한 소고", 성균관법학, 22(3), pp.1025~1048 (2010), 법학연구소
- Daniel S. Medwed, "Up the River Without a Procedure: Innocent Prisoners and Newly Discovered Non-DNA Evidence in State Courts", Arizona Law Review, 47, pp.655~ (2005)