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.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The current article 1792 (1) of the French Civil Code lay down: “The constructor of an building is …… legally liable to the employer or the acquirer of the building.” It was actually amended in 1978 to reflect the jurisprudence so far developed, regarding the employer’s action for construction defects as accessory to the ownership.
In Korea, law provides for the counterpart in art. 9 of the Condominium Act as the articles on the general contractor’s defect liability (667 to 671 of the Korean Civil Code) correspondingly apply, notwithstanding any agreement favorable for, to the creator of a condominium. To the question, who is beneficiary of the liability laid down here, the Korean Supreme Court declared in 2003 that the right to remedies should belong to the current condominium owner, though she/he has no contractual relationship with the original creator.
After reviewing developments of law in France since 1978, as fruits of comparative law work, this these listed five possible suggestions on the action for defects of a condominium: (1)no sooner should the action be in principle deemed to move to a new owner than the property right is transferred, (2)to whom already belongs to a contractual remedy against the old owner from their transfer contract. (3)The damages to be claimed should be on principle own ones; it should be noted that qualification of the contract could have influence over the defendant’s foreseeability, especially when a mandatory does usually not expect any change of its mandator. (4)Moreover, the same status should be admitted to the owndership successor of other accomodations than condominiums; a simple usufructuary could make appeal to the action on art. 401 of the Korean Civil Code, according to current jurisprudence. (5)Last but not at least, there could be
hardly found any reasonable necessity to restrict the doctrine to condominiums that the remedy should be transferred subject to the ownership in the above described way, the legislative sources of which the Korean Supreme Court found in art. 9 of the Condominium Act in the 2003 decision; hence is suggested here to widen the scope of application to all sorts of immovables subject to registration. In other words, the article should be an expression of a more general - constitutional - principle of property protection as well as of the state’s concern to citizens’ security.
In Korea, law provides for the counterpart in art. 9 of the Condominium Act as the articles on the general contractor’s defect liability (667 to 671 of the Korean Civil Code) correspondingly apply, notwithstanding any agreement favorable for, to the creator of a condominium. To the question, who is beneficiary of the liability laid down here, the Korean Supreme Court declared in 2003 that the right to remedies should belong to the current condominium owner, though she/he has no contractual relationship with the original creator.
After reviewing developments of law in France since 1978, as fruits of comparative law work, this these listed five possible suggestions on the action for defects of a condominium: (1)no sooner should the action be in principle deemed to move to a new owner than the property right is transferred, (2)to whom already belongs to a contractual remedy against the old owner from their transfer contract. (3)The damages to be claimed should be on principle own ones; it should be noted that qualification of the contract could have influence over the defendant’s foreseeability, especially when a mandatory does usually not expect any change of its mandator. (4)Moreover, the same status should be admitted to the owndership successor of other accomodations than condominiums; a simple usufructuary could make appeal to the action on art. 401 of the Korean Civil Code, according to current jurisprudence. (5)Last but not at least, there could be
hardly found any reasonable necessity to restrict the doctrine to condominiums that the remedy should be transferred subject to the ownership in the above described way, the legislative sources of which the Korean Supreme Court found in art. 9 of the Condominium Act in the 2003 decision; hence is suggested here to widen the scope of application to all sorts of immovables subject to registration. In other words, the article should be an expression of a more general - constitutional - principle of property protection as well as of the state’s concern to citizens’ security.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 소재
Ⅱ. 프랑스 법의 전개
Ⅲ. 結語 - 우리 법에의 시사
참고문헌
[Abstract]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
헌법재판소 2008. 7. 31. 선고 2005헌가16 전원재판부
가. 주택법 부칙 제3항은 `법 시행 전에 사용검사나 사용승인을 얻은 공동주택의 담보책임이나 하자보수에 관하여는 주택법 제46조의 개정규정을 적용한다’고 하고 있어, 주택법이 시행되기 전에 사용검사나 사용승인을 받았다면 그 하자가 발생한 시점이 주택법이 시행되기 전이라 하더라도 2005. 5. 26.
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
미국 집합건물법상 집합건물의 창설 및 관리에 관한 고찰
법학연구
2019 .03
-
공동주택의 하자담보추급권의 주체에 관한 고찰
법학연구
2013 .12
-
말레이시아 콘도미니엄 가격형성요인에 관한 연구 : 쿠알라룸푸르 지역을 중심으로
주거환경
2015 .12
-
공동주택의 하자보수책임에 관한 판례의 동향
법학연구
2012 .05
-
콘도미니엄 회원권 구입의사에 대한 집단간 차이 연구 : E-테마파크 사례를 중심으로
호텔관광연구
2001 .12
-
[판례평석] 아파트입주자대표회의 법적 성격
인권과 정의
2020 .01
-
상업용 집합건물 분양계약상 업종제한약정에 대한 규범적 통제
고려법학
2017 .01
-
개정 집합건물법의 주요 내용과 입법과제에 관한 소고
동아법학
2020 .08
-
A Study on Necessity of Rating System for Resort Condominium
호텔관광연구
2012 .12
-
아파트 분양가격과 건설사 수익성간의 관계에 관한 연구
한국지역개발학회지
2007 .06
-
집합건물법에 있어서 집합건물의 대지 및 대지사용권에 관한 고찰
홍익법학
2010 .01
-
아파트 분양마케팅 활동과 초기계약률에 관한 연구
부동산학연구
2011 .01
-
프리미엄 콘도미니엄 회원권 구매목적과 선호요인과의 관계분석
관광레저연구
2010 .05
-
집합건물에 대한 담보책임
아주법학
2018 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-001505862