인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
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
In the Civil law system, the extinctive prescription is formulated to promote legal efficiency. It prevents stale claims as well as encourages the resolution of legal claims within a reasonable time period. The general view has it that the prescription period of 10 years set out in paragraph 2, Art. 766 of the Korean Civil Code is perceived as a means to limiting(restricting?) the extension of the prescription period by 3 years set out in paragraph 1 for further observative purpose.Therefore, the 10 year term of exercise period m all respects functions only when considering the purpose of the 3 year limitation term stipulated in the preceding paragraph and it does not carry raison d'être on its own. In correspondence to the suspensibility and instability of the 3 year limitation term, interpretation and usage of this 10 year clause should be standardized yet remain absolute. An extension period results from interruption, suspension, and delayed commencement of the prescription, as well as the pleading based on the good faith doctrine, will not be allowed.This theory(view) is very consistent as an ideological claim, however it does not coincide with the substantive enactment prescribed in Art. 766 of the Civil Code. Therein lies the problem. Problematic issues arise when it comes to real-world implementation or in consideration of the results.Further in-depth theoretical consideration should be applied in regards to whether the 10 year term carries raison d'être on its own; if it does, what is its connection with the 3 year term; also, if the running of 10 year term prescription is interrupted, what would interruption mean under such circumstances; how should one interpret the significance of the comprehensive Art. 766, and so forth. At the very least, the interpretation of exercise period prescribed in paragraph 2 of Art. 766 as extinctive prescription, will sufficiently reflect the legislative history and legal terminology of our legal system. It will also be more reasonable from the dimension of comparative law.Futhermore, the Supreme Court's recent decisions on tort claims concerning unlawful acts of state, product liability, pharmaceutical product possessing an incubation period etc., show that the Court has adopted a more flexible approach in dealing with the commencement point of the prescription or pleading based on the good faith doctrine, with focus to protect the rights of the injured party. Taking that on board, the clause should no longer be interpreted in the conventional manner that attempts to promote legal efficiency in favour of protecting the so-called general public interest, and neither should it be imposed upon the injured party.In short, the general view that perceives the long-term period for exercise of a right as an exclusion period purporting to promote legal efficiency from the dimension of generating general public interest is nothing more than a "creative interpretation that differs from the substantive enactment" which lacks of objective rationality and appropriateness of the results.
#민법 제766조 제2항
#불법행위손해배상청구권의 장기행사기간의 법적성질
#소멸시효
#이중기간규정 the right to claim for damages resulting from an unlawful act
#일본민법 제724조 후단
#제척기간
#Art. 724 of the Japanese Civil Act
#Art. 766 of the Korean Civil Act
#exclusion period
#extinctive prescription
#interruption of exclusion period
상세정보 수정요청해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌
참고문헌 신청최근 본 자료
UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-24-02-089348581
