• Proceedings of the Korea Water Resources Association Conference
• /
• 2023.05a
• /
• pp.74-74
• /
• 2023

우리나라는 환경부장관이 설치한 다목적댐에 한하여 댐사용권이라는 독특한 권리관계를 설정하고 있다. 댐사용권이란 다목적댐에 의한 일정량의 저수를 일정한 지역에 확보하고 특정용도에 사용할 수 있는 권리를 말하는데(댐건설관리법 제2조), 이러한 다목적댐의 성질에 대하여 동법은 '댐사용권은 물권(物權)으로 보며, 이 법에 특별한 규정이 있는 경우를 제외하고는 부동산에 관한규정을 준용한다'고 규정하고 있다(동법 제29조). 댐사용권은 하천에 흐르는 유수를 댐을 이용하여 저류하게 하고 이를 특정용도에 사용하거나 혹은 매매할 수 있는 권한을 댐사용권자에게 부여하고 있다. 즉 댐사용권이라고 하면 댐에 의해 저류된 물을 특정용도(생활용수, 공업용수, 농업용수, 환경개선용수, 발전(發電), 홍수 조절, 주운(舟運), 그 밖의 용도)로 사용하거나, 해당 저수를 사용하려는 자에게 사용료를 받을 수 있는 일체의 권한을 의미한다. 그런데 댐건설관리법은 제29조에서 댐사용권을 물권으로 보고 있으며 부동산에 관한 규정을 적용한다고 규정하고 있다. 일반적으로 댐사용권은 하천에서 유일하게 허용하고 있는 공법상의 물권으로 해석할 수 있고 하천수 사용권과 같은 채권과는 성격을 달리한다. 댐사용권이 부동산에 관한 규정을 준용할 이유가 없다고 할 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 물권으로서 댐사용권의 법적 성질을 규정하고 있는 댐건설관리법이 왜 댐사용권을 부동산에 관한 규정으로 엮고 있는지에 대해 조사하였다. 댐사용권이 물권이라면 물권의 객체는 무엇이고, 부동산의 개념이 댐사용권에서 허용할 수 있는 범위는 무엇인지 살펴보았다. 이러한 의문을 해결하기 위하여 1966년에 제정된 특정다목적댐법 등의 법률 제·개정 연혁을 살펴보았고, 우리나라 하천법 및 댐건설관리법의 근간이라고 일컬어지는 일본 수법과의 비교·검토를 수행하였다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.121-143
• /
• 2007

The law of Jus Rerem of China enacted on March 16, 2007 came into force from October 1st, 2007. China has enacted the law of Jus Rerem. This means that all three nations of Northeast Asia have formally and substantially similar legal terms and conceptions. Therefore, they will be reciprocally influenced on the legal matters related Jus Rerem. In the year 1949 when China, as a communist country, was originally established without the private ownership system, the law of Jus Rerem was not introduced. Since the reform and the open-economy policy in the year 1978 came into force, it has become important that newly acknowledged private property has been stipulated by the law of Jus Rerem. Arbitration Law of China is enacted on August 31th, 1994 and came into force from September 1st, 1995. It is a basic law which rules Chinese arbitration system. China has enacted the law of Jus Rerem, "conformed with the 21st century", by solving a lot of issues in dispute. A socialistic idea, a traditional Chinese idea and realistic conditions of the market economy were integrated into the law of Jus Rerem. It would have a very good effect on the growth and prosperity of China.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.17 no.8
• /
• pp.135-144
• /
• 2012

The Preferred Right that recognized in Housing Lease Protection Act Article 8 Paragraph 1 is a legal security right. The case of a small tenant whose security deposit is less than a specific sum of money to lease housing, he can get preferential payment about his a specific sum of money of security deposit in an auction procedure. Like this the Preferred Right can protect the homeless commoner also it ignores the existing legal system. But the Preferred Right has the right function that contribute to stability of homeless people's housing, on the other hand, it has the adverse function that damages to several interested parties in an auction procedure by using legal preferential protection. So, about these problems, the improvement way will propose in this study.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.29-65
• /
• 2012

Der neue strukturelle Ansatz der Kommbination eines Rahmen$\ddot{u}$bereinkommens und eines ausr$\ddot{u}$stungsspezifischen Sonderprotokolls bedingt einen neuen organisatorischen Anstz f$\ddot{u}$r die Zusammenarbeit zwischen internationalen Organisationen bei der Schaffung von internationalem Einheitsprivatrecht. So haben hier zwei internationale Organisationen gemeinsam die Verantwortung f$\ddot{u}$r einmultilaterales $\ddot{U}$bereinkommen $\ddot{u}$bernommen: auf der einen Seite UNIDROIT als die internationale Organisation, die generell f$\ddot{u}$r die Vereinheitlichung des Privatrechts kompetent ist; auf der anderen Seite ICAO als die f$\ddot{u}$r die private Luftfahrt zust$\ddot{a}$ndige internationale Organisation. Dieses neue, f$\ddot{u}$r die Luftfahrzeugausr$\ddot{u}$stung praktizierte organisatorische Modell eines joint venture zweier internationaler Organisation bei der Einheitsrechtsetzung, namlich die Betreuung eines allgemeinen privatrechtsvereinheitlichenden Rahmens$\ddot{u}$bereinkommens durch UNIDROIT und die Wahrnehmung der sektorspezifischen Belange in einem ausr$\ddot{u}$stungsspesifischen Sonderprotokoll durch die jeweils zust$\ddot{a}$ndige internationale Spezialorganisation, hat bereits f$\ddot{u}$r die Sektoren der Eisenbahn- und Weltraumausrustung Schule gemacht. Das in Kapstadt beschlossene v$\ddot{o}$lkervertragliche Regelungswerk hat erstmals ein einheitsrechtliches - grunds$\ddot{a}$atzlich weltweite Geltung anstrebendes - Sicherungsrecht geschafen. Dies kann f$\ddot{u}$r die Sachenrechtsintergration einen $\ddot{a}$hnlichen Durchbruch bedeuten, wis das Wiener UN-kaufrechts$\ddot{u}$bereinkommen von 1980 f$\ddot{u}$r das Schuldvertragsrecht. Voraussetzung daf$\ddot{u}$r ist allerdings die juristische Qualit$\ddot{a}$t und Praxisgerechtigkeit des Regelungswerkes und - insbesondere - das Funktionieren des Registersystems. Von wesentlicher Bedeutung f$\ddot{u}$r den Erfolg des $\ddot{U}$bereinkkommens wird auchsein, ob es Rechtssicherheit zu gew$\ddot{a}$hrleisten vermag.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference
• /
• 2021.07a
• /
• pp.417-419
• /
• 2021

명의신탁이란 신탁자와 수탁자 간의 대내적 관계에서는 신탁자가 부동산소유권을 보유하고 신탁목적물이 부동산을 관리하고 수익 및 처분하면서 등기의 공부상 소유명의만을 수탁자로 하여 두는 제도로서 구법시대 부터 판례에 의하여 인정되어왔다. 부동산소유권과 그 밖의 물권을 실체적 권리관계에 부합하도록 실권리자 명의로 등기함으로써 부동산등기제도를 남용한 불법행위 등 반사회적 행위를 예방하고 부동산 거래의 안정화를 도모하여 국민경제의 건전한 성장에 기여함을 목적으로 1995년 제정된 부동산실명법에 의하여 원칙적으로 명의신탁이 금지될 뿐만 아니라 엄격하게 해석되어야 함에 불구하고 아직도 명의신탁은 척결되지 않고 있는 것이 사실이다. 특히 명의신탁에 있어서 부동산실명법에 의거 명의신탁약정이 무효가 된 경우에 명의신탁 대상의 부동산소유권이 누구에게 귀속되는가 등 여러 가지 문제점이 대두되고 있다. 따라서 명의신탁은 계약자유의 원칙이 지배하는 현시점에서 법률행위 논리가 반영되어야 할 것으로 본다.

• Korea Real Estate Review
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.77-90
• /
• 2014

With the purpose of preventing improper development on the national land, the land development permission system which is performed from 2002 has meaning as a type of limiting the property right, but modification on the details of traditionally understood land ownership is inevitable. Also, releasing the development prohibit on the land not only stop in recovering the freedom for land development, but also can be interpretated as a cause of forming the land development right, therefore the purpose of this study is to develop this into a real right. When we look at the development activity permission as a form of limiting the property right, constitutional problems of basis for that limit and compensation demand can occur. However, that limit can be recovered or relieved through permitting the development activity, therefore the compensation problem can be solved. Due to the development activity permission system, the land development right was separated from the land ownership to be communalized, and now, the land ownership only has condition use right left and don't have the future condition change right in principle, therefore modifying the traditional concept of land ownership is inevitable. By the virtue of the land ownership authority, the land development permission system must have the property to separate the development right as the independent right to be authorized of its legitimacy. Without these properties, the land development permission system cannot satisfy the social necessity of the land development right and its discussion under the category of the land ownership limit theory can't be deviated. In the existing "Civil Law" or in the Land Regulation Law system, there are many difficulties and limits in generalizing the land development right as a real right. Therefore, it is considered that by establishing a social law idea of Framework Act on the Land to characterize the land right theory in the real right theory, the land development permission system or the development right theory should be studied and developed independently and systematically.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.155-176
• /
• 2015

Leasing is one of the main methods for Chinese airlines to introduce aircraft from overseas manufactures, and this method has been used for more than 30 years by Chinese airlines. Aircraft leasing in essence is a kind of financial transaction, through which lessors provide finance to lessees by means of the delivery of possession of the leased aircraft. At the time when China started to introduce aircraft through leasing some 30 years ago, the Chinese domestic laws were very insufficient to regulate these activities. Therefore, a construction process for the law of aircraft leasing was triggered then, and some fruit has been gained. By far, there are rules to adjust the aircraft activities in the aspects of contract, real right, default and bankruptcy remedies. However, as the improvement of any system must undergo a process of exploration, the law of aircraft leasing in China is still faced up with many challenges. Especially with the emergence and prosperous of domestic leasing industry, new transaction structures and models of aircraft leasing have emerged, which leaves new challenges to current legal system. On the basis of introducing the history and main contents of Chinese legal regime of aircraft leasing, this paper offers an analysis of achievements and challenges on present Chinese laws in the aspects of contract, real right and remedies.

• Proceedings of the Korea Water Resources Association Conference
• /
• 2022.05a
• /
• pp.77-77
• /
• 2022

댐건설관리법 제2조제3호에서 댐사용권을 '다목적댐에 의한 일정량의 저수를 일정한 지역에 확보하고 특정용도에 사용할 수 있는 권리'로 규정하고 있다. 즉 댐사용권을 설정할 수 있는 법적인 객체는 다목적댐에 한정된다고 할 수 있다. 이러한 댐건설관리법 상의 규정은 다목적댐만이 오롯이 댐사용권을 설정할 수 있는 특혜적 권리로 인정되고 있다. 댐용수와 하천수의 관계를 구분함에 있어서 댐건설관리법상 저류된 물은 댐건설로 추가로 확보된 하천수를 국가가 배타적인 물권적 권리인 댐사용권이라는 권리를 설정함으로서 하천수와 구별하고자 하는 주장이 하천행정 및 학계에 있어서 광범위한 지지를 얻고 있는 이유이다. 한편 하천수는 하천의 지표면에 흐르거나 하천 바닥에 스며들어 흐르는 물 또는 하천에 저장되어 있는 물을 의미(하천법 제2조제8호)하는데 댐용수와 하천수의 구분에 관해서도 이렇다 할 법적인 기준은 존재하지 않는다. 댐용수에 관한 법률 규정이 없기 때문이다. 그러나 대부분의 경우댐용수 역시 하천수의 일종으로 보는 것이 다수 의견인데 이러한 구분의 모호함 역시 댐사용권의 설정에 따른 구분의 모호함에서 비롯된 사항이라고 보인다. 본 연구에서는 다목적댐에 대해서만 설정할 수 있는 댐사용권이 가지는 의미에 대하여 새로운 법적 해석을 시도한다. 다목적댐 외에도 우리나라에서는 하천의 저수를 일정한 지역에 확보하고 있는 수많은 댐이 존재한다. 즉 댐건설관리법은 그 자체로 왜 다목적댐에 대해서만 댐사용권의 설정이라는 특혜적 권리를 부여하고 있는지에 대해 아무런 설명을 하고 있지 않다. 이 문제를 규명하기 위하여 댐건설관리법의 모체인 특별다목적댐법의 입법목적을 검토하고, 이의 모체가 된 일본의 특정다목적댐법과의 비교·분석을 수행한다. 이를 통해 댐사용권의 진정한 법적인 의미를 규명하고 댐관리 법제의 현실을 명확하게 파악하고자 한다.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.41
• /
• pp.261-302
• /
• 2011

A lien is the right to possession the thing until receiving repayment of its bonds in some cases that the property of other person or the occupant for marketable securities receive the bond that has occurred on that property or marketable securities. This has own purpose to break 'principle of creditor equality' to protect especially the bond of the subject occupant in terms of justice. These lien on our civil law come according to the law in prepared certain requirements. However, an incomplete real rights granted by way of security that does not have a preferential performance right or seniority on the exchange value of the object suffer from the problems a lot in the real estate auction process because of the feature that is not announced in the register unlike the mortgage. In addition, the lien of real estate is not lapsed in an auction process. There is no preferential performance righ in a positive law as providing that can oppose to the buyer(a successful bidder) until received repayment the secured bond price to be compliant with the lien(Civil Case Execution Law the 91st clause of Article 5). However, as asserted the super preferential performance righ to a buyer in real terms, acts as primary cause of breaking unexpected loss and according unfair law relation to a senior mortgagee and seizor, etc. and the principles of the creditors equality to the persons concerned in other words, the principles of justice. All of these issues are the establishment of the lien and theory conflict on the effects. In spite of the fluctuations of a real right about real estate is announced as a registration by the current law, only the lien come into unclear announcement means for possession. In addition, Civil Case Execution Law argument is caused by the adoption abernahmeprinzip about the lien (Civil Case Execution Law the 91st clause of Article 5). Therefore, this paper was examined briefly the significance and purpose, history and law-making examples of each country and the valid requirements and effect of the lien that is basic principle of law about the lien system above all. And then, it will be reviewed the improvement plan for de lege ferenda to improve the issues about this after reviewing the objection, theory and judicial precedent about opposing power and preferential performance right of the lien in the real estaKey Words : Lien, Oppose Power, Mortgage right, Preferential Performance right, Seizure, Real Estate Auction, Lien who can not Opposing against Successful Bidder, Lien who can Oppose against Successful Bidder, Possessionte auction that is a fundamental problem on requirement and effect of the lien.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.257-264
• /
• 2008

This study is intended to know what is the legal problems to settlement and public announcement of property right for construction of marine architectural building in Korea. Firstly, the situation and the prospect around marine architectural building are examined Secondly, the legal concepts of marine architectural building and the application of related laws are analyzed. Thirdly, the problems related to public announcement of property right of marine architectural building are suggested. Fourthly, some improvement schemes to solve the legal problems in relation with property right of buildings on the water at sea and ocean are proposed. As the conclusion, the marine architectural building can be divided into fixed-type and floating-type in order to find the proper way to handle the public announcement of property right for that sort of building. The fixed-typecan be registered as real estate according to the Building Law through the amendment of the existing related laws. But for the registration of floating-type building a new law should be made. In the near future, improvements on the legal system related with the settlement of property right of marine architectural building should be made, so that private sectors can join construction and operation of the building. Especially a new law for the floating-type marine architectural building should be made as soon as possible.