지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In our civil law article 342, it says “the right of pledge can be exercised on the money or other things that a pledger will be given due to the loss, damage or public expropriation of a pledge.”, and that clause shall be applied in the case of mortgage on article 370.
By the way, since under civil law article 342 provisory clause only it provides “the thing must be seized before payment or transfer” concerning the conditions for the exercise of the subrogation system, not known its meaning sufficiently the problem who finally has given priority in reimbursement among the general creditor that are given the seizure and assignment order and the security right holder that seized the thing by civil law article 342 provisory clause must be arose.
In order to solve this problem, the discussions will have to be given priorly, which the way how can understand the seizure as the condition for subrogation or who will seize the thing if seizure must be needed for the preservation of subrogation right.
So this report researched the essence and the meaning of the subrogation, the rank of the priority and so on through the review of theories and precedents over the interpretation of the civil law article 342 provisory clause.
Eventually the ‘seizure’ of the civil law article 342 provisory clause is to protect the third-party debtor who is in danger of the double reimbursement due to unaware of the existence of the security real right in accordance with subrogation rights are recognized, having no direct to do with the theory of the nature of subrogation rights. And the ‘seizure’ must done by the right of subrogation oneself since that ‘seizure’ is informing the existence of the subrogation rights to the third-party debtor.
Also the double reimbursement is protected by delivering the seizure order to the third-party debtor after the right of subrogation has seized the object bonds even if the object bonds are sequestrated, seized or transferred, or the assignment is ordered on it. Therefore solely by the sequestration, seizure, transfer or the assignment order of the object bonds the ‘payment or transfer’ seems not to be existed under civil law article 342 provisory clause.
By the way, since under civil law article 342 provisory clause only it provides “the thing must be seized before payment or transfer” concerning the conditions for the exercise of the subrogation system, not known its meaning sufficiently the problem who finally has given priority in reimbursement among the general creditor that are given the seizure and assignment order and the security right holder that seized the thing by civil law article 342 provisory clause must be arose.
In order to solve this problem, the discussions will have to be given priorly, which the way how can understand the seizure as the condition for subrogation or who will seize the thing if seizure must be needed for the preservation of subrogation right.
So this report researched the essence and the meaning of the subrogation, the rank of the priority and so on through the review of theories and precedents over the interpretation of the civil law article 342 provisory clause.
Eventually the ‘seizure’ of the civil law article 342 provisory clause is to protect the third-party debtor who is in danger of the double reimbursement due to unaware of the existence of the security real right in accordance with subrogation rights are recognized, having no direct to do with the theory of the nature of subrogation rights. And the ‘seizure’ must done by the right of subrogation oneself since that ‘seizure’ is informing the existence of the subrogation rights to the third-party debtor.
Also the double reimbursement is protected by delivering the seizure order to the third-party debtor after the right of subrogation has seized the object bonds even if the object bonds are sequestrated, seized or transferred, or the assignment is ordered on it. Therefore solely by the sequestration, seizure, transfer or the assignment order of the object bonds the ‘payment or transfer’ seems not to be existed under civil law article 342 provisory clause.
목차
Ⅰ. 序論
Ⅱ. 物上代位의 本質
Ⅲ. 物上代位 要件으로서 押留
Ⅳ. 物上代位의 效果로서 優先權의 順位
Ⅴ. 結論
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (23)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
강원랜드 카지노리조트호텔의 고객경험이 만족 및 충성도에 미치는 영향 : 사전기대의 조절효과를 중심으로
이정자
호텔경영학연구
2014
.10
확장된 기술수용 모델을 적용한 스마트폰 외식정보 서비스 사용자의 수용태도에 관한 연구
김용일
,
임재문
호텔경영학연구
2014
.10
호텔기업의 문화마케팅이 기업브랜드이미지와 관계지속의도에 미치는 영향 연구 : 사회적 책임활동(CSR) 중 자선적 책임인식의 조절효과
안소영
,
한진수
호텔경영학연구
2014
.10
컨벤션호텔 서비스 속성별 만족 유형에 따른 MICE 참가자시장세분화 연구 : 강원지역 MICE 참가자를 대상으로
지계웅
,
한진영
호텔경영학연구
2014
.10
외식 영양표시에 대한 소비자의 인지도 및 만족도 조사
정유선
,
함선옥
,
양일선
외 1명
호텔경영학연구
2014
.10
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2015-300-002822706