본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

2009년 상법총칙·상행위법 판례의 법리와 분석

Comments on the Case Law Concerning General Provision and Commercial Transaction under the Commercial Act in 2009

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

This article analyzes and makes critical comments on the supreme court cases concerning general provision and commercial transaction under the Commercial Act in 2009. In 2009, the Supreme Court of Korea made several important case laws. But I selected the representative five cases. The representative cases are introduced in this article as the following:1. Managerial Employee with a Patial Comprehensive Rights 〔Supreme Court Case 2007da20440, 20457〕. In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged the managerial employee with a patial comprehensive rights. 2. Transference of Business(1) 〔Supreme Court Case 2007da17123, 17130〕. In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged the transference of business. 3. Transference of Business(2) 〔Supreme Court Case 2009ma1136〕. In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged the transference of business. 4. Agency of Commercial Transaction 〔Supreme Court Case 2008da79340〕. In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged the agency of commercial transaction. 5. Multimodal Transport 〔Supreme Court Case 2008da58978〕. In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged the short terms of instituting validity on the NEGOTIABLE FIATA MUTIMODAL TRANSPORT BILL OF LADING.

Abstract

This article analyzes and makes critical comments on the supreme court cases concerning general provision and commercial transaction under the Commercial Act in 2009. In 2009, the Supreme Court of Korea made several important case laws. But I selected the representative five cases. The representative cases are introduced in this article as the following:1. Managerial Employee with a Patial Comprehensive Rights 〔Supreme Court Case 2007da20440, 20457〕. In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged the managerial employee with a patial comprehensive rights. 2. Transference of Business(1) 〔Supreme Court Case 2007da17123, 17130〕. In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged the transference of business. 3. Transference of Business(2) 〔Supreme Court Case 2009ma1136〕. In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged the transference of business. 4. Agency of Commercial Transaction 〔Supreme Court Case 2008da79340〕. In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged the agency of commercial transaction. 5. Multimodal Transport 〔Supreme Court Case 2008da58978〕. In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea acknowledged the short terms of instituting validity on the NEGOTIABLE FIATA MUTIMODAL TRANSPORT BILL OF LADING.

참고문헌 (15)

  1. 강위두, "상법강의(상)" (2009), 형설출판사
  2. 김인현, "해상법" (2007), 법문사
  3. 이철송, "상법총칙·상행위법" (2009), 박영사
  4. 정영석, "해상법원론" (2009), 텍스트북스
  5. 정찬형, "상법강의(상)" (2010), 박영사
  6. 정찬형, "상법강의(하)" (2009), 박영사
  7. 지원림, "민법강의" (2002), 홍문사
  8. 최준선, "보험법·해상법" (2005), 삼영사
  9. 김원수, "복합운송인의 책임", 부산판례연구회 제228차 발표회 (2010)
  10. 김인현, "“해상법 2009년 분야별 중요판례분석”, 법률신문 제3838호, 2010. 5. 6", ~ (2010)
  11. 신현윤, "2006년도 상법 판례의 회고와 전망 - 부분적 포괄대리권을 가진 상업사용인(제15조)을 중심으로 -", 상사판례연구, 20(1), pp.3~28 (2007), 한국상사판례학회
  12. 안수현, "2007년 상법총칙 상행위 판례회고", 상사판례연구, 20(4), pp.229~257 (2007), 한국상사판례학회
  13. 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
  14. 임재호, "영업양도의 개념과 판단기준-대상판결:대법원 2005. 7. 22. 선고 2005다602 판결-", 법학연구, 48(1), pp.1163~1192 (2007), 법학연구소
  15. 최준선, "복합운송법의 제정 방향", 상사법연구, 29(1), pp.9~38 (2010), 한국상사법학회

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)