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
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국법정책학회 법과 정책연구 법과 정책연구 제10권 제1호
발행연도
2010.1
수록면
307 - 325 (19page)

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
This paper discusses the 2003 Korea Supreme Court ruling and the 2007 Korea Supreme Court ruling on extinctive prescription of the right to claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in business transactions. These two issues have the following in common: 1. The party claiming for restitution of unjust enrichment (henceforth “the Party”) exercised the right to claim for restitution of unjust enrichment (henceforth “the Right”) on the grounds that the contract that resulted from the business transaction is invalid, 2. The Party made the payment without the knowledge of unjust enrichment, and 3. Between the time the Party made the payment and the time the Party filed a suit, a ruling was issued on a separate case, which objectively showed that the Party can claim for restitution of unjust enrichment. In 2003, the Korea Supreme court ruled on these issues that the period of prescription of the Right begins from the moment the Party objectively came to the knowledge of its right to claim taking effect and that the prescription period is ten years. In 2007, however, the Korea Supreme Court ruled that the period of prescription of the Right begins from the moment the unjust enrichment occurred and the prescription period is five years. Since these Supreme Court rulings have conflicting views on when the prescription period begins and how long it lasts, this paper reviews the validity of said disparity. The Supreme Court should, through its verdicts, perform a role of providing future guidelines to members of the society. However, in its rulings on extinctive prescription of the Right, it is difficult to conclude that the Supreme Court provided proper guidelines to members of the society who might face similar situation. On the matter of extinctive prescription of the Right, a logical way is to determine when the prescription period begins and how long it lasts by differentiating between the time the Party comes to the knowledge that its right has taken effect and the time the unjust enrichment has occurred. If the Party was aware that the contract resulted from the business transaction was invalid, it is undesirable to allow the Right to be exercised for a long period of time. If there exists a reasonable cause for the Party retain such profit, it is necessary to make the prescription period short. This paper suggests creating article 64-2 of the Commercial Code ( extinctive prescription of the right to claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in business transactions) which contains aforementioned details. A new legislation should be introduced after active discussions based on such revised draft.
#부당이득반환청구권 #상사시효 #상행위로 인한 채권 #소멸시효의 기산점 #소멸시효기간 #Extinctive Prescription Period #Obligation due to Business Transactions #Period of Prescription for Commercial Claim #Right to Claim for Restitution of Unjust Enrichment #Starting Point of Prescription Period

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (20)

참고문헌 신청
Ole Lando / 2005 / CISG and Its Followers: A Proposal to Adopt Some International Principles of Contract Law / Am. J. Comp. L google schola Owen M. Fiss / 1984 / Against Settlement / Yale L.J. google schola Suzette M. Malveaux / 2005 / Statutes of Limitations: A Policy Analysis in the Context of Reparations Litigation / Geo. Wash. L. Rev google schola Tyler T. Ochoa / 1997 / The Puzzling Purposes of Statutes of Limitation / Pac. L.J. google schola 上田宏 / 1994 / 商事時?の適用範?--2つの最高裁判所判例を中心として / 東北?院大?論集 43 google schola

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0