메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
민사법의 이론과 실무학회 민사법의 이론과 실무 민사법의 이론과 실무 제16권 제2호
발행연도
2013.1
수록면
3 - 35 (33page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
After the liberation, North and South Korea both confiscated land from all the anti national actors to dissolute the unreasonable land relations of the Japanese colonization and to pay off faults of the past. However, the confiscating process of unified Korea may differ from that of the past depending on the method of unification. If one Korea is absorbed into the other, and the past confiscation of the absorbed Korea is considered illegal, as the case of Germany, the restoration of the land to the original owner can be regarded as a possible remedy. In such a case, though, common factors of confiscation found in both Koreas that took place after the liberation should not be called illegal. On the other hand, if the unification is agreed upon, the confiscation of North Korea will be evaluated as valid, and the recovery to the original owner will not be considered. In this case, new ways to reorganize land ownership should be established for balanced development of North Korea. However, if the confiscation of North Korea is considered illegal, as was in Germany, then there would be a problem on how to view the confiscation of South Korea. This is because two Koreas both confiscated land to resolve land-to-the-tillers principle and unreasonable land ownerships such as domination of land, and the subjects of confiscation includ ed not only the land that was being cultivated by people other than the owner but also the ones cultivated by non-farmers. Therefore, there seems to be no reason to simply consider the confiscation of North Koreato be against the law of South Korea.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (43)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0