中国《民法典》中的共同担保人利益调整规则研究 - 借鉴韩国共同担保机理 -

金路伦,贺赫 전북대학교 동북아법연구소 2021 동북아법연구 Vol.14 No.3

The mixed joint guarantee is stipulated in Article 392 of China's Civil Code, which is a continuation of Article 176 of the Property Law. The latest "Judicial Interpretation of the Guarantee System" has added a new guarantor to recover after the debt is paid. As well as the provisions on subrogation, the introduction of this interpretation is the result of further development on the basis of the solid “Civil Code”. However, in the specific judicial practice, there are still problems such as the protection of the interests of the mortgagee after the subject of the joint guarantee, so the legal provisions for mixed joint guarantees need to be further improved. In the definition of “commonality” in the hybrid guarantee, the creditor and the guarantor should be considered on an equal basis. The joint guarantor cannot be simply regarded as a joint and several liability relationship without intentional contact. The focus of the existing theory of disputes over the possibility of creditors’ internal recovery in academic circles is whether there are joint debts between guarantors. The negative theory should prevail. However, denying the recourse between guarantors will create an unfair situation. Use subrogation to solve this dilemma. On the basis of resolving the joint guarantor’s right of recourse and in-depth analysis of the application of subrogation to solve the guarantor’s claim, the interests of the subsequent mortgagee should be fully protected. The status of the guarantor and the guarantor should be balanced. The provisions of the joint guarantee can learn from the “Korean Civil Law” and the legal prece-dents to distinguish the ownership of joint mortgages in two situations: simultaneous distribution and non-time distribution to explore which compensation method is more conducive to protecting the rights and interests of subsequent mortgagees. The judicial interpretations to be issued again in the future should focus on Article 392 of the Civil Code and Articles 13 and 14 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Guarantee System to improve the provisions on specific matters of joint guarantee.

中国‘房地一体原则’的再思考

金路伦 한중법학회 2014 中國法硏究 Vol.22 No.-

중국에서는 토지와 건물을 별도의 부동산으로 취급하면서도 이들을 처분할 경우에는 일괄 처분할 것을 요구한다. 환언하면, 건물을 처분함에 있어서 그 건물이 점유하고 있는 범위내의 토지사용권을 함께 처분할 것을 요하고 그 주 요한 이유가 바로 건물과 토지사용권의 권리자가 분리되는 것을 막으려는 것 이다. 다만, 건물과 토지의 일괄처분을 원칙으로 하지만 건물과 토지사용권을 별도로 처분하는 경우가 많다. 특히 저당권에 있어서는 건물과 토지가 모두 고 가치의 부동산이므로 이러한 수요가 더욱 많고 토지사용권은 용익물권이고 이 또한 사용기간의 제약을 받고 있는 부동산이므로 토지사용기간이 만료 된 후 의 토지와 건물의 관계도 큰 문제점으로 부각되고 있다. 실제로 물권법에서는 저당권의 실행 시 토지사용권과 건물의 일괄경매를 규정하고 저당권이 설정된 토지사용권위에 건물이 축조되는 경우에도 일괄 처분을 할 것을 요구하는 등 일괄처분을 법적으로 규제하고 있다. 다만 이러한 법적 규제와 현실의 괴리가 존재하는 문제에 관하여 보다 구체적인 대안이 필요하다. 이에 대하여 장래 가 능한 범위 내에서 법정지상권제도 등을 도입하는 것이 필요하다고 생각한다. Land and buildings in China are two separate things, but needs meanwhile disposal. In other words, the disposal of buildings should be at the same time when dispose of the land use right within the area of the building. The main reason is to prevent the separation of the rights owner of lands and buildings occurs. Although the meanwhile disposal of buildings and land is the principle, but there are cases where buildings and land use rights are treated separately. Especially for mortgage terms, buildings and land are high-value real estate, so that the separation is greater demand. Land use rights are usufructuary and subsisting limited period, so that the relationship between the period after the expiry of the land use rights on the land and its buildings are also important issues. In fact, the Property Law requires the realization of mortgage property right, buildings and land use rights should also be auctioned. In addition, a mortgage on the land use right after the new buildings, the land use right auction also requires simultaneous auction of buildings and land. Because the separation of buildings and land disposition greater demand in reality, so in order to solve these problems, it is necessary to introduce a system of statutory superficies for future tenure.

违约精神损害赔偿制度的适用研究

金路伦,蔡琦 전북대학교 동북아법연구소 2020 동북아법연구 Vol.14 No.2

In China, compensation for mental damages for breach of contract is a controversial issue. The traditional civil law view holds that the liability for breach of contract does not include mental damage, and that mental damage belongs to tort liability. Cases of mental damage caused by breach of contract continue to appear, and some scholars have begun to affirm the rationality of compensation for breach of contract mental damage. In this context, this article analyzes the textual interpretation and systematic interpretation of Article 996 of the Civil Code and concludes that the legislator’s attitude towards compensation for mental damages for breach of contract is ambiguous. However, the judicial interpretations clearly oppose the system of compensation for mental damages in breach of contract. The contradiction between the two has also caused confusion in the judicial trial. The article uses big data to collect judicial cases and finds that although most judges deny compensation for mental damages for breach of contract in accordance with judicial interpretations, some judges affirm the compensation for mental damages based on the justice of individual cases. Then, the article refutes the view of negating the compensation for breach of contract mental damage, and launches a theoretical defense for constructing the compensation system for breach of contract mental damage from four perspectives, namely, to make up for the loopholes in the overlap of responsibilities, meet the requirements of predictability rules, and meet the principle of complete compensation,and judicial practice can provide experience for the amount of compensation. This article proposes that compensation for breach of contract mental damage needs to meet the conditions of general breach of contract, that is, there is a breach of contract, the injured party suffers serious mental damage, and there is a causal relationship between breach of contract and mental damage. Finally, in order to prevent the breach of contract mental damage compensation system from being abused, the subject of breach of contract mental damage should be restricted to natural persons, and at the same time, the contract type should be restricted. These two points should be used to limit the breach of contract mental damage compensation system. 在中国,违约精神损害赔偿是一个备受争议的问题。传统民法观点认为违约责任中不包括精神损害,精神损害属于侵权责任。因违约而产生精神损害的案例不断出现,部分学者开始肯定违约精神损害赔偿的合理性。在此背景下,本文通过对《民法典》第996条的文义解释和系统解释两个角度的分析,得出立法者对于违约精神损害赔偿的态度模糊不清。而司法解释却旗帜鲜明的反对违约精神损害赔偿制度。这两者的矛盾也引发了司法审判中的混乱。文章使用大数据采集司法案例,发现虽然多数法官依照司法解释否定违约精神损害赔偿,但部分法官立足于个案正义,对违约精神损害赔偿予以肯定。然后,文章对否定违约精神损害赔偿的观点予以反驳,从弥补责任竞合的漏洞、符合可预见规则的要求、符合完全赔偿原则以及司法实践可为赔偿数额提供经验四个角度为构建违约精神损害赔偿制度展开理论辩护。本文提出违约精神损害赔偿需要满足一般性违约的条件,即违约行为的存在、受损害方遭受严重的精神损害以及违约行为与精神损害之间存在因果关系这三点。最后,为了防止违约精神损害赔偿制度被滥用,应将违约精神损害的主体限制为自然人,同时对合同类型作出限制,以此从侧面规制违约精神损害赔偿制度。

未来版权质押法律问题研究

金路伦,邹莹莹 전북대학교 동북아법연구소 2018 동북아법연구 Vol.12 No.1

In recent years, with the development of China’s economy, the film and television industry has also developed rapidly with the flood situation. But since the film industry is a capital-intensive industry, the first problem is financing difficulties. It often takes a longer period for a movie to be played from the early stage to the final broadcast, and any link can’t be separated from the support of sufficient funds. Once the source of funds is stopped, the follow-up work will be difficult. In the face of such difficulties, the film companies usually have to borrow money from banks to get funds, but there is a shortage of guaranteed assets, especially for small and medium-sized film companies. In order to solve this dilemma, a large number of film and television companies choose to use the future copyright pledge to obtain funds .The future copyright is recognized by some foreign countries, but there is no uniform regulation on whether it can be transferred. The Anglo-American law system thinks that the future copyright can be transferred freely. In the continental law countries, Germany thinks that the future copyright is not transferable, while France thinks that the right of human rights in future copyright is not transferable, and the property rights can be transferred. Although China’s property law clearly stipulates that the copyright can be pledged and encourages this behavior, there is no stipulation on whether the future copyright can be pledged .This paper is based on this problem, first of all, from the future copyright as a kind of the essence of the right of expectation, theoretically analyzed its This paper is based on this problem, first of all, from the future copyright as a kind of the essence of the right of expectation, theoretically analyzed its transferability. Then it discusses the applicable rules of the future copyright, and thinks it should refer to the relevant rules applicable to movable property. On this basis, the conflict between human rights and property rights in the future copyright pledge is analyzed, and the legal license is adopted to solve this problem. Finally, the paper discusses ways of demonstration of the future copyright, and thinks that it should be applied in the formalism censor, and unify the pledge registration of copyright and the transfer registration of copyright to registration antagonism. It is hoped that it can provide theoretical basis for the regulation of future copyright pledge.

论中国代位清偿制度的构建 - 以比较法为视角 -

金路伦,李贤媚,黄丹 한중법학회 2021 中國法硏究 Vol.45 No.-

중국 민법전에서 변제자 대위를 규정하기 전에 변제자 대위에 관련된 내용 은 여러 법에 분산적으로 규정되었다. 민법전이 공포된 후 주요한 문제는 한면 으로 민법전이 공포된 후 실무에서 상호발생하는 관계를 어떻게 처리하는 것 과 변제자 대위제도가 논리적인 모순을 어떻게 해결하는 가이다. 다른 한면으 로는 권리의 충돌을 해결하고 권리보장을 완선화하고 권리규칙이 너무 간략한 문제가 존재한다. 변제자대위는 제3자가 채무를 변제할 경우 변제자가 채무자 또는 공동 채무 자로부터 구상권을 취득하는 것을 확보하기 위하여 채권자가 변제자에게 종된 권리를 이전하는 것이며 이에는 담보권등을 포함한다. 이 경우, 변제자는 구상 할 수 있는 범위내에서 권리를 행사하며 대위로 인하여 채권자의 권리에 손해 를 야기할 수 없다. 전자에 대하여 행사하는 대위권은 보증인에게도 행사할 수 있다. 현재 프랑스, 일본, 한국민법에서는 변제자 대위를 단독으로 규정하였고 임의대위와 법정대위로 구분한다. 전자는 채권자의 승낙에 의하여 채권양도의 방식으로 진행되는 대위이고 후자는 정당한 이익이 있는 자가 변제를 하고 당 연히 채권자들 대위하는 것이다. 독일에서는 비록 변제자 대위를 하나의 독립 적인 제도로 규정하지 않았지만 민법전의 여러 장절에 분산적으로 규정하였다. 기타 대륙법계 국가와 마찬가지로 중국에서도 제3자가 변제하는 경우가 있 으며 변제자의 권리를 보호하는 입장에서 변제자가 변제한 뒤 구상하는 방식 으로 구상권을 실현하고 있다. 중국의 이러한 구상권 방식은 여러 가지 문제점 이 존재하며 이에 비하여 기타 대륙법계 국가에서 취하는 변제자대위 제도는 그 법적논리 또는 효과적인 측면에서도 많은 장점을 갖고 있다. 중국의 변제자 구상제도를 보완하고 변제자 구상권에 존재하는 문제점을 해결하기 위하여 본고에서는 비교법적 분석을 거쳐 대륙법계의 여러 나라의 변제자대위제도를 비 교하고 관련 법률규정을 검토하여 중국에서 변제자 대위제도의 구축 가능성을 검토하였다. 그외에 보증인, 물상 보증인, 제3취득자, 연대채무자를 변제자의 범위에 포함시키고 여러 대위변제자 사이의 대위구상관계를 명확히 하였으며 중국과 기타 대륙법계 국가의 관련제도에 대하여 비교 분석을 진행하였다. 동 시에 변제자사이의 변제순위와 변제비율등 구체적인 문제에 관하여 논의를 전 개하였으며 장래 제정하는 민법전의 사법해석에서 관련 규정을 마련할 것을 기대하고 있다. Before the provisions of the civil code of the people’s Republic of China are determined,the contents of liquidation subrogation are scattered in many law, After the promulgation of the civil code, China is faced with the following difficulties:How to effectively reflect the changes in the real interaction and how to connect logic system;On the other hand, how to resolve the conflict of rights、improve the protection of rights and refine the rules of rights. Liquidation subrogation refers to the transfer of subordinated rights, including relevant security rights, from the creditor to the liquidator in order to ensure that the liquidator obtains the right of claim from the debtor or joint debtor, when the debt is paid off by a third party.At this time, the liquidator exercises the right within the scope of claim, and the right of the creditor cannot be damaged by subrogation. At the same time, it’s right of subrogation to the debtor is also exercised to the guarantor.At present, the civil law of France, Japan and South Korea has made separate provisions on the system of subrogation, and divided it into arbitrary subrogation and legal subrogation.The former is subrogation by the way of assignment of creditor’s rights;The latter is paid off by a person with a legitimate interest, of course subrogation. Although Germany did not set it as an independent system, it also set the transfer of creditor’s rights in the form of scattered chapters. Compared with other civil law countries, China also has the situation of the third party’s repayment. In terms of the protection of the liquidator’s rights, the liquidator’s claim right after repayment is realized in the form of recovery. The affirmation of this right of recourse is not complete. Compared with other civil law countries, the system of subrogation is more advantageous in terms of legal logic and final effect. To perfect our country pay claims system, solve the problem of pay off people claims in our country, this article from the perspective of comparative law, through to the other civil law countries pay people subrogation system is analyzed, and combining with our country legal regulation, determine the build liquidation people the possibility of subrogation system in our country, The scope of the liquidator is determined, including the guarantor, the guarantor/issuer and the third person, joint debtor and clarify the subrogation in personal relationships between the subrogation of liquidation, the contact between China and other civil law countries at the same time compares and analyses the relevant system to pay off the human discharge sequence specific problems such as discharge ratio are also proposed.

道路管理者侵权责任研究 - 以妨碍通行物致害为中心 -

金路伦,尹相彬 한중법학회 2017 中國法硏究 Vol.31 No.-

도로위에 통행을 방해하는 물품에 대한 도로관리자의 책임문제에 있어서 도 로관리자의 귀책원칙에 관하여 일원설과 이원설이 대립하고 있으며 이에 대하 여 통행방해를 야기한 행위자와 도로관리자에 대하여 별도로 규정해야 한다. 즉 이원설을 취해야 한다. 중국 “불법행위법” 제89조는 도로관리자의 불법행위 책임에 관하여 무과실책임원칙을 적용해야 한다고 규정하였다. 그러나 2012년 에 공포한 “도로교통사고 손해배상사건 법률적용에 관한 해석” 제10조는 도로 관리자가 과실추정책임(중간책임)을 부담하는 것이 원칙이라고 한다. 이에 대 하여 본고에서는 귀책성여부, 입증책임, 이익형평, 중국 사법현황 등을 분석한 결과 도로관리자가 과실추정책임(중간책임)을 부담해야 한다고 본다. 도로관리자의 책임에 관한 요건사실에 관해서는 도로관리자의 관리책임, 불 법행위의 피해자가 입은 손해, 도로관리자의 관리책임과 피해자가 입은 손해사 이의 인과관계 내지 도로관리자의 과실 등 측면에서 논의해야 한다. 피해자가 도로관리자를 기소하지 않은 경우와 가해자를 확정하지 못한 경우의 사례를 분석하여 제소자가 다르고 피해자의 유무에 따라 도로관리자책임의 경중이 상 이한 것은 법원이 당사자의 책임을 확정함에 있어서 그 법적근거를 다르게 보 는 것에 기인한 것이다. 도로위의 통행방해물이 야기한 책임에서 도로관리자 와 불법행위자의 행위는 각각 불법행위를 구성하며 이들은 피해자에 대하여 본인의 과실에 기하여 각자 책임을 부담해야 한다. 도로관리자의 책임을 확정할 때, 과실정도, 행위와 손해의 원인력 관계 및 정책적인 측면을 고려하여 불법행위책임의 경중을 판단해야 한다. 대부분 경 우 도로관리자가 부작위의 방법으로 타인에게 손해를 가해기 때문에 과실이 적으며 과실에 상응한 책임을 부담한다. 그리고 도로관리자의 과실은 추정되는 것이기 때문에 과 실정도에 기해서만 판단하면 과실정도와 그 책임이 괴리 가 생기는 상황이 발생할 수도 있다. 그러므로 도로관리자의 불법행위의 원인 력 정도에 따라 책임을 인정해야 한다. 과실과 원인력의 관계문제에서 과실과 원인력 종합설을 취해야 하며 원인력을 중심으로 하고 도로관리자의 과실을 부가적으로 고려해야 할뿐만 아니라 정책적인 측면과 공평책임 등 여러 요소 를 고려하여 그 책임범위를 확정해야 한다. In the question of the Liability of road administrators in injuring responsibility of traffic obstructions, In determining the principle of the responsibility imputation of road administrators, there is a debate between monism and dualism in the theoretical circles. In this regard, the behavior of people and road administrators who produce traffic obstructions should stipulated separately. That is to say, the author adopts dualism. According to the provisions of Article 89 of the Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China, the principle of the responsibility imputation of road administrators should be applied no fault liability while Article 10 of Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Road Traffic Accident Compensation Cases promulgated in 2012 holds that road administrators should be applied the principle of presumption of fault. In this regard, the author intends to obtain the rationality of the principle of the presumption of fault of road administrators from the perspective of the subjective imputation, the legal system, the difficulty of obtaining evidence, the balance of interests, the current judicial practice in China. In the case of the constituent elements of the responsibility of road administrators, they mainly include the fact that the road administrators don’t fulfill the management responsibility, the infringers are damaged, the causal relationship between the administrative responsibility of the road administrators and the infringers, there is subjective fault in road administrators. The author compares the cases where the infringers don’t prosecute the road administrators and the infringers can’t determine the situation. The analysis shows that the share of the road administrators’ responsibility in practice is different according to the subject that the infringers prosecute and whether there are infringers. The reasons for such a situation lie in that the basis of the responsibility of different courts is not unified. The author believes that in injuring responsibility of traffic obstructions, the behavior of road administrators and infringers should be a separate infringement, and both shall undertake liability on share. Determining the responsibility of road administrators should be based on their fault level, reasoning force of behavior and damage, and the relevant policy. Road administrators usually damage interests of others by nonfeasance, their subjective fault is small and they should bear small responsibility corresponding to the degree of fault. The fault of the road administrators is presumed, thus there is a great deal of uncertainty. And the subjective fault will be unconformable with role of the damage behavior when determining responsibility of road administrators only by the degree of the fault. It should be combined with the reasoning force to determine responsibility of road administrators. For the relationship between fault factors and reasoning force, the author believes that it should combine Fault Theory with Reasoning Force Theory. Besides, it mainly uses reasoning force supplemented by fault of road administrators, then determines the scope of responsibility through policy considerations and fair responsibility to better supervise the road administrators to fulfill their obligations.

《民法典》视域下正常经营买受人规则研究

金路伦,孙瑀阳,李贤媚 한중법학회 2024 中國法硏究 Vol.55 No.-

“正常经营买受人规则”作为抵押财产的“流出”关系中买受人特殊保护规 则,曾被作为辅助规则置于浮动抵押制度项下. 直至中国于2019年世界银 行营商环境调查中“获得信贷便利度指标”之得分结果,立法者改变固守态 度,转而将其作为独立条文并上升为动产抵押畴域的一般规则,可谓兼 备效率与公平的技术性法律. 然而由于立法对这一规则仅作框架性的概念 性陈述,自法文本身的高度凝练性和价值追求抽象性,若不经解释将引 致实务审判的司法肆意. 同时,其与“动产抵押登记对抗规则”“动产抵押物 转让规则”为一组规范安排,梳理规则间衔接适用的重要性自不待言. 在 此意义上,打通“正常经营买受人规则”背后的体系论和解释论是最为核心 的问题. 本文以《民法典(物权编)》为研究底本,从域外立法以及实务 审判维度洞悉该规则之寓意. 在“抵押人处分自由”公之于世的背景下,通 过体系解释、目的解释等方式分析该规则与“动产抵押登记对抗规则”“动 产抵押物转让规则”应呈现的“强弱井然”动态关系. 从法律规范与社会效应 两方面,联系利益平衡方法解构该规则涵涉的运行要素,进一步精确其 中带出的创新性衍文. 基于解放财富理念,搭配落实合理性保护,以防止 一方盆丰钵满,另一方身陷困顿之僵局. 为防止抵押权人利益过分轻易丧 失,需要排除买受人在交易中存在“恶意”的情况,即买受人应持有相当程 度的“善意”. 除此之外,因买受人于“正常经营活动”中取得完整所有权后, 抵押财产上的抵押权归于消灭,此时赋予抵押权人就价款主张物上代位 之权利. 为促进物上代位权在实践中得以更好地运用,可在事后通过设定 权利质权之手段予以救济,同时配合设置额外补偿责任作以平衡利益的 维权砝码. As the special protection rule of the buyer in the outflow relationship of the mortgaged property, the “normal operation buyer rule” has been placed under the floating mortgage system as an auxiliary rule. Until the score of China’s “access to credit facility index” in the world Bank environmental Survey in 2019, legislators changed their fixed attitude and took it as an independent provision and raised it to the general rule in the field of chattel mortgage, which is a technical law with both efficiency and fairness. However, due to the legislation of this rule is only a framework of conceptual statement, since the law itself is highly condensed and the value of the pursuit of abstractness, if not explained will lead to the practice of judicial arbitrary. At the same time, it is a set of normative arrangements with “chattel mortgage registration antagonistic rules” and “chattel mortgage transfer rules”, so it is of great importance to comb out the cohesion and application of the rules. In this sense, it is the core problem of this paper to get through the system theory and explanation theory behind the “normal business buyer rule”. Based on the Civil Code (Real Rights), this paper explores the implication of the rules from the perspectives of extraterritorial legislation and practical trial. Under the background of “freedom of punishment of the mortgagor”, the dynamic relationship between this rule and “chattel mortgage registration and confrontation rule” and “chattel mortgage transfer rule” should be analyzed by means of system explanation and purpose explanation. From the two aspects of legal norms and social effects, the balance of interests method is used to deconstruct the operational elements involved in the rule and to further refine the innovative provisions. Based on the concept of wealth liberation, with reasonable protection, to prevent one party from rich income, the other party into a difficult situation. In order to prevent the loss of the mortgagee’s interests too easily, it is necessary to exclude the “bad faith” of the buyer in the transaction and require the buyer to hold a considerable degree of “good faith”. In addition, because the buyer in the “normal management of the buyer rules” after the acquisition of complete ownership, the mortgage on the mortgage target due to the extinction, at this time to grant the mortgagee to claim the price claim subrogation rights. In order to promote the better use of the right of subrogation in the practice of gold and property, it can be relieved by the means of establishing the right pledge after the event, and at the same time, it can balance the weight of the right protection of the mortgagee by setting up additional compensation liability.

混合共同担保问题研究

金路伦 한중법학회 2015 中國法硏究 Vol.24 No.-

채권자는 채권의 만족을 얻기 위하여 채무자에게 여러 가지 유형의 담보를 제공할 것을 요구하고 있다. 채권을 담보하기 위하여 물상보증인과 보증인의 담보가 있는 경우를 중국법에서 공동담보의 하나의 유형으로 보고 있다. 이 경우에 채무자가 변제기에 채무를 변제하지 않으면 채권자는 물상보증인과 보증인에 대하여 채권을 변제할 것을 요구할 수 있다. 다만 현행 “물권법” 규정에 따르면 물상보증인과 보증인 중 채권을 변제한 자가 타 담보인에 대하여 구상권을 가지는가에 관하여 명확한 규정이 없으며 이에 대하여 학계와 실무계에서 여러 가지 논의가 존재한다. “물권법” 제176조가 물상보증인과 보증인의 상호관계에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 물상보증인과 보증인의 상호관계에 관하여 물상보증인 우선주의, 보증인 우선주의 및 평등주의 등 여러 가지 견해가 있으며 “물권법”의 해석상 보증인과 물상보증인은 평등한 관계라고 보아진다. 이것은 기존의 “담보법”과 “담보법해석”에서 양자의 상호관계에 관한 규정과 상이하며 사실상 물상보증인과 보증인의 관계는 당사자의 사적자치의 범주에 포함되어야 할 것이므로 이들 사이의 약정이 강행법규나 사회질서에 반하지 않는 한 공익을 이유로 그 효력을 규제할 필요가 없고 가령 당사자사이에 관련 약정이 없는 경우에만 법률규정에 따라야 한다. 현행법에 따르면 물상보증인과 보증인사이에는 상호구상권이 없으며 이에 관하여 비록 여러 가지 주장이 있지만 법률에 명확한 규정이 없는 상황에서 이들 사이의 구상권을 인정할 수는 없고 특히 “물권법” 제176조의 해석상 물상보증인과 보증인 사이에 구상권이 있다는 결론에 이를 수 없다. 가령 담보인사이의 구상권을 인정하여 채권을 우선 변제한 담보인의 이익을 보호하려면 변제자 대위제도를 도입해야 한다. In order to satisfy creditor claims obtained, it tends to increase the number of guarantee, which guarantees both the substance and also guarantee human. Guarantee the existence of multiple circumstances (substance guarantee and human guarantee) is referred to as mixed together on the same credit guarantees. In the case of mixing guarantee, in the main session of the debtor does not repay the debt, the creditor realize how their claims should be treated with substance and human insurance relationship? After the creditors' claims are satisfied, the assumed liability guarantee was surety or guarantor is entitled to claims from other guarantor? On these issues, practitioners and theorists were more controversial. On the coexistence guarantee of mortgager and guarantor, how to balance the interests between the guarantor is the goal of the 176th pursuit of property law, and this law has changed the state of confusion between the previous mortgager and the guarantor. It can be concluded that in the guarantee of the coexistence of mortgager and the guarantor, their position is equal, because the relationship between the security responsibility of the object and the person's guarantee responsibility is the problem of the autonomy of private law, so it will not be related to the public welfare. It can be said that the guarantee of the same rights for the guarantee and the guarantee of the scope of the guarantee is the scope of the party's autonomy, the parties can freely agree. If there is no agreement or the agreement between the parties is not clear, the need to achieve security in accordance with the law. According to the existing law, there should be no recovery was on the relationship between the mortgager and the guarantor. Although multiple viewpoints demonstrate the relationship between the guarantor shall recover from all angles, but in no case law expressly provides can’t rush to recognize the existence of recourse between them. In addition, the session of unliquidated obligations of the debtor and the creditor to realize his security right result guarantor for debtor debts, so if the interests of a better balance between the guarantor, the need to provide subrogation system, so for related unliquidated obligations of the guarantor of the debtor repayment of subrogation.

房屋次承租人优先购买权相关问题探析

金路伦,邹莹莹 가천대학교 법학연구소 2018 가천법학 Vol.11 No.2

With the rapid growth of the market economy and the progress of the urbanization process, the housing market has begun to flourish. especially the growth of housing sublease. The house-subletting is the lease contract signed between the lessee and the sub-lessee, under the premise of the lessor's admission, and the lessor is not the parties of the contract. The contract law of our country only stipulates the preemptive right of the lessee ,in fact, the sub-lessees are weaker than lessors and lessees whether in the degree of dependence on houses or in economic status. In practice, since the contract law of our country does not stipulate whether the sub-lessee applies the preemptive right, it is often difficult for the sub-lessees to claim the right, and the courts are not unanimous in the judgments of such cases. With the increase of housing sublease disputes, it is urgent to increase the relevant laws to protect the preemptive right of the sub-lessee. Based on this purpose, this paper first expounds the concept of preemptive right and sublease, analyzes several theories about the nature of preemptive right in the academic field, and concludes that the preemptive right is the right of compulsory contracting. Then, from the perspective of the relativity of the contract, the function of property possession and the legal interpretation, The rationality of the preemptive right of the sub-lessee is analyzed theoretically. On this basis, the exercise condition of the preemptive right of sub-lessee is explored based on the exercise condition of the lessee's preemptive right. Finally, on the premise that the lessee and the sub-lessee can claim the preemptive right at the same time, it discusses how to resolve the conflict between the sub-lessee's preemptive right and lessee's preemptive right. 随着市场经济的快速增长和城镇化进程的不断推进,房屋租赁市场也开始蓬勃发展,其中房屋转租现象的增长尤为突出。转租系经出租人同意后由承租人直接与次承租人签订的房屋租赁合同,出租人并不是转租合同的当事人。中国《合同法》仅规定了承租人的优先购买权,事实上不论是从次承租人对房屋的依赖程度,还是从次承租人的经济地位而言,次承租人相较于出租人与转租人都是弱者。在实务中,由于中国《合同法》并未规定次承租人是否享有优先购买权,因此次承租人往往难以主张权利,各地法院对此类案件的判决也大相径庭。随着房屋转租纠纷的增多,增加保护次承租人优先购买权的法律规定已迫在眉睫。本文正是基于这一写作目的,首先对优先购买权和转租的概念进行阐述,分析了目前学界关于优先购买权性质的几种学说,结合次承租人优先购买权自身的性质,得出优先购买权为强制缔约请求权的结论。然后从合同相对性、占有持续功能和法律解释三个角度入手,对次承租人享有优先购买权的合理性进行了理论分析。在此基础上结合承租人优先购买权的行使条件探究了次承租人优先购买权的行使条件。最后在承认承租人与次承租人可以同时享有优先购买权的前提下,分情况讨论了承租人与次承租人在同时主张优先购买权时哪一方顺位在先的问题。

人保与物保并存时的法律关系研究 - 以《物权法》第176条为对象 -

金路伦,黄丹 전북대학교 동북아법연구소 2019 동북아법연구 Vol.13 No.1

Article 176 of the Property Law stipulates the legal relationship of the coexistence of suretyship and real security, which called mixed co-guarantee. Compared with other single forms of guarantee, mixed co-guarantee has stronger guarantee of creditor's rights and it's more complicated. This paper discusses whether the regulation is reasonable and whether it should have the right of subrogation and right of recourse. From the perspective of the development process of mixed co-guarantee in China, the autonomy of will is in line with the basic principles of civil law and also the logical relationship of guarantee system. The implementation order of the mixed guarantee system shall comply with the following agreement. Where there No agreement, The security of the things guaranteed by the debtor shall have priority. Except security of the debtor's property, creditors may choose the security of the thing or the security of the person. From the perspective of legislation “Where there No agreement, The security of the things guaranteed by the debtor shall have priority” is in line with the original intention of the legislator. At the same time, when security of the debtor’s property is exists, it avoids t he i nj ustice t o t he t hird p arty a s g uarantor. “ Except s ecurity o f t he d ebtor’s property, creditors may choose the security of the thing or the security of the person.” is Denied the priority of real right enforcement, It is also the recognition of the equality of human status guaranteed by the Property Law. However, this paper has some questions about the rationality of the absolute priority of debtor’s guarantee. As for the issue of the guarantor's right of recourse, this paper affirms that the guarantor can exercise the right of recourse according to a certain proportion from the theory, system explanation and comparative law. Whether the guarantor should have the subrogation right or not, The subrogation right of guarantor should be recognized by law from its relationship with the right of recourse and the practical demand.