ITU TELECOM 99에 다녀와서...

이춘원,Lee, Chun-Won 한국위성정보통신학회 1999 위성통신과 우주산업 Vol.7 No.3

독일법상의 경계확정소송

이춘원,Lee, Choon-Won 한국국토정보공사 공간정보연구원 2014 지적과 국토정보 Vol.44 No.1

There is no provision regarding the 'litigation on land boundary' under the Korean laws. Therefore, there are disputes in theory with respect to its nature, requirements for litigation, criteria for determination, etc., and it is necessary to establish the provisions of the law on this issue in the future. For this legislation, it is necessary to conduct a comparative consideration on laws of other countries which have completed the relevant provisions. This study, as a first step, researches a history of litigation for determination of boundary under the Roman law and medieval law, and furthermore introduces the German law which has relatively completed legal provisions on litigation for determination of boundary. In addition to common ownership litigation, the German law has established a provision on litigation for boundary as a judicial procedure considering a special place, called as a dispute on ownership of adjacent land, on the assumption that it is difficult or impossible to prove the boundary. The primary purpose of this litigation is to clarify a true boundary, and if such clarification is impossible, a boundary is discretionally created in accordance with the statutory standards under Article 920 of the German Civil Act (BGB). It means creation of the scope of land ownership by operation of decision, not only by the 'discovery of original boundary'. Both cases are different from each other in the aspect of judicial decision, but embracing them into one is a lawsuit for determination of boundary under the German law. Under the Korean legislation, it is necessary to make a theory containing two different criteria for determination into a single type of litigation, considering such aspects.

지목분류체계에 관한 연구

이춘원,김진,Lee, Choon-Won,Kim, Jin 한국국토정보공사 공간정보연구원 2015 지적과 국토정보 Vol.45 No.1

In the past, the main function of land use categorization was merely used for basic data for taxation purpose, but recently land use categorization is used as important reference data in various ways, including administrative affairs, national land plan, land development, city maintenance as well as private transactions of land, in addition to the provision for assessment data. In the future, it can be expected to broaden its own functions. For expansion of the function of land use, we need to reconsider categories of land use from a perspective of individual laws and regulations actually regulating land use from a perspective of demand. In order to resolve any discrepancy between actual land use and land use on official books, the ultimate method of resolution is to study the current state of actual use of land and reflect them on official books, but it is also necessary to prevent any confusion of national people by unifying various categories of land adopted by the regulatory acts related to land. In addition, if the same administrative regulations are applied to different land use under the current laws, it is necessary to include them in the land of the same category. This study proposes to establish a new category for securing systematic consistency of the current categories of land use under the integrated cadastral act with other land laws and regulations.

建物의 區分所有 成立要件에 관한 硏究

이춘원(Lee Chun-Won) 한국집합건물법학회 2008 집합건물법학 Vol.2 No.-

Das Korenaische Gesetz über das Eigentum am kollektiven Gebäude und dessen Verwaltung (abgekürzt: Kollektivgebäudegetz, EkGVG) enthält keine Regelung über die Begründung des Wohnungseigentums. Das deutsche Pendant, Gesetz über das Wohnungseigentum und das Dauerwohnrecht regelt aber ausdrücklich, dass das Wohnungseigentum durch Vertrag der Miteigentümer oder durch Teilung begründet wird. § 1 Kollektivgebäudegesetz(EkGVG) lautet: Wenn strukturell abgerenzte Teile eines Gebäudes als selbständige Einheiten benutzt werden können, dann können die einzelnen Gebäudeteile zum Objekt des Eigentums werden. Die ausdrücklich geregelten objektiven Tatbestandsmerkmale für Begründung des Teileigentums sind demzufolge wie folgt: 1. Es handelt sich um ein Gebäude. 2. Die Gebäudeteile sind strukturell abgrenzbar (strukturelle Seblständigkeit). 3. Die Gebäudeteile können als selbständige Einheit benutzt werden (Nutzungsselbständigkeit). Die einhellige Meinung in der Rechtsprechung und Literatur fordert darüberhinaus ungeschriebene subjektive Elemente wie das Vorhandensein eines Abgrenzungswillens. Umstritten ist demgegenüber über die Erforderlichkeit einer Eintragung. Weil in den letzten Jahren strukturell komplizierte Gebäude, die über eine Luftbrücke oder unterirdisch verbunden sind, sehr häufig gebaut werden, ist die Abgrenzung eines Gebäudes von dem anderen schwrierig geworden. Wann ist ein Gebäude als ein Gebäude zu betrachten Dieser Aufsatz wird sich unter anderem mit folgenden Fragen befassen: Wann ist ein Gebäude wirklich ein Gebäude? Als Kriterien werden unter anderem folgende genannt: 1. die Eindeutigkeit der Grenze 2. die Abgrenzung der Gebäudeteile 3. die Unmittelbarkeit des Weges zur Aussenwelt 4. das Vorhandensein der Einrichtungen zur Sondernutzung 5. das Nichtvorhandensein der Einrichtungen zur Gemeinnutzung. Im Hinblick auf ein Geschäftsgebäude stellt sich aber die Frage, ob eine vollkommene Abgrenzung erforderlich ist. Dieser Aufsatz wird über diese Themen hinaus auch noch die Fragen nach dem Abgrenzungswillen, der Erforderlichkeit der Eintragung mit behandeln.

입주자대표회의의 법적 지위에 관한 소고

이춘원(Lee Chun-Won) 한국집합건물법학회 2011 집합건물법학 Vol.7 No.-

With the rapid spread of mass housing, such apartment, in the housing culture, many disputes over the management of mass housing have been occurred in our society. The first emerging issue regarding the management of mass housing was the residents’ opposition to unilateral operation of mass housing by developers or managements selected by such developers with the residents’ intention excluded. Corruption and irregularity frequently occur since most of apartment complexes conclude all matters through their own audit process due to the residents’ indifference to the management of mass housing, moral hazard of a representative association for residents, and management system assigned to resident autonomy, while it is common that members of a representative association for residents have been unappreciated due to the spread of a trend of mutual distrust despite their diligent and hard works. These problems have been mainly caused by excessive emphasis on decision-making focused on a representative association for residents based on a representative system underlining the effective management of mass housing. However, unlike in the past, it is not impossible for residents to directly participate in the management of mass housing with the development of IT technologies. However, in order to ensure that residents can communicate their intention regarding the management of mass housing, they need to exactly know information about the management of mass housing. In addition, a government as well as a representative association for residents needs to make a public notice from time to time for informing all information about the management of mass housing. For this, central governments as well as local governments need to newly establish an organization exclusively responsible for the management of mass housing. Above all, the management of mass housing must be improved in the direction of respecting individual resident’s intention. In order to achieve it, a representative association for residents should not be operated for its own benefit, but should be operated in the direction of respecting the collective opinions of residents and realizing them. While the role of government has put an emphasis on housing and construction, it is time for the government to put an emphasis on management rather than construction. Because the management of housing is a public service for promoting national people’s residence benefit, it should not be concluded as a clumsy logic of efficiency or moderate temporary expedient, but requires a forward-looking and innovative change of awareness.

Common Law에서 신의성실의 원칙

이춘원(Lee Choon Won) 한국비교사법학회 2016 비교사법 Vol.23 No.3

오늘날, 국제화에 따라 국가 간의 FTA가 체결되고, 국제거래에서 법 통일을 도모하는 노력이 행해지고 있다. 그러한 흐름 속에서 신의성실(Good Faith)의 원칙은 중요한 논의의 대상의 하나이다. 로마법의 영향을 강하게 받은 Civil Law 국가들에서는 공통적으로 신의성실이 중요한 일반 원칙(doctrine)으로서 인식되고 있다. 그러나 게르만법에서 유래하는 전통적인 법 체제를 유지해 온 영국 등 Common Law 국가에서는 신의성실을 일반원칙으로 도입하는 데에 있어서 소극적이다. 영국에서도 한 때 신의성실이 일반원칙으로 승인될 가능성은 있었으나, 19세기에 유행하였던 경제자유주의의 영향으로 나타난 ‘매수인 위험부담주의(Caveat Emptor) 원칙’ 등으로 그 가능성이 소멸되어 버렸다. 계약상 성실하고 공정하게 행동하여야 할 일반적인 의무는 지지되지 않고 있다. 영국법에서 신의성실을 일반적 의무로 받아들이지 않는 것은, 권리에 대하여 전통적으로 매우 자유로운 접근을 하는 영향 때문이다. 영국 계약법은 대등하게 거래를 하는 매우 빈틈없는 상인사이의 대규모적인 상업거래에 초점을 맞추고 있는 것이다. 미국은 Common Law 법체계에 속하지만, ‘제2차 계약법 리스테이트멘트(American Law Institute’s Restatement(2d) of Contract 1981)’ 에서 모든 계약에서 당사자에게 신의성실의 의무를 부과하여 신의성실을 계약상 일반원칙으로 인정하고 있으며, ‘통일 상사법전(Uniform Commercial Code)’에서도 신의성실에 관한 규정을 두고 있다. 미국에서 신의성실은 계약상 묵시적인 의무로 다루어지며, 정의를 위한 것으로 인식되어 계약 당사자에게 부수적인 의무를 부과한다. 신의성실 의무는 계약 당사자의 의도를 존중하며 강제적이거나 차별을 폐지할 수도 있다. 신의칙은 채무불이행의 일반적인 기준으로 중요한 역할하며, 계약서에 표현되거나 명백한 것을 빙빙 둘러 교묘히 피하지 못하도록 한다. 본 논문에서는 신의성실에 대한 비교법적인 연구로서 Common Law 법제 하에서 신의성실에 관한 입장을 정리하여 소개하였다. Today, due to globalization, FTAs were executed between countries, and an effort to promote the unity of law in the international transaction has been made. In such trend, the principle of good faith is one of the important subjects for discussion. In the civil law countries that were strongly influenced by the Rome Law, it is common that the good faith is recognized as an important doctrine. However, the common law countries, including UK, that have maintained the traditional legal system derived from the Germanic Law, are passive in adopting the principle of good faith as a doctrine. In UK, there was a possibility that the principle of good faith would be accepted as a doctrine, but such possibility was eliminated due to the ‘principle of Caveat Emptor’ emerged by the influence of economic freedom which was popular in the 19th century. The idea of a general obligation arising out of any contract to act fairly and in good faith could not be supported. The reason why the UK law does not consider good faith as a general obligation is that UK traditionally tends to have a very free approach to rights. The UK contract law focuses on large-scale commercial transactions among exact merchants who make transactions on an equal basis. The U.S is a country adopting the common law system, but the American Law Institute’s Restatement(2d) of Contract 1981 recognizes that good faith is a doctrine by imposing the obligation of good faith on contractual parties in all contracts, and the Uniform Commercial Code also have the provision of good faith. Good faith is treated as an implied provision in the contract. It imposes obligations on the contracting parties that are perceived to be in the interests of justice. The obligation of good faith ensures that the intent of the contracting parties is not frustrated. The good faith obligation does not only proscribe conduct. It may also mandate or require affirmative action. It is important to note that the doctrine is generally perceived as a default standard in the United States. It cannot be used to effect ‘an end-run around the unequivocal and express terms of the contract.’ This thesis is a research under comparative law regarding good faith, and introduces the position of good faith under the common law system.

공유토지 분할에 관한 특례법의 개선방향:

이춘원(Lee, Choon-Won) 한국부동산법학회 2018 不動産法學 Vol.22 No.2

When a housing company sells an apartment lot, there are many cases in which a kindergarten neighboring the complex and neighborhood living facilities are sold together. Those who buy the lot of a kindergarten usually buy the site as well as the building, and the entire site of the apartment including the site of the kindergarten is often registered as a shared stake in the register. However, in reality, those who have bought the lot of a apartment and those who have bought the lot of a kindergarten do not have a common relationship for sharing the land, and such situation causes inconvenience to each other due to the land-related administrative processes as well as the meaningless conflicts of interests. The fee burden is heavy when a cadastral record or a real estate register for the applicable site needs to be inspected or copied, and a transaction price for this kind of site is lower than those of the land in the neighboring area, which results in property disadvantage. In addition, if a kindergarten is renovated or newly constructed because the kindergarten has been built for a long time, it is necessary to obtain the consent of all partitioned owners. In case of large apartments, it is virtually impossible to obtain the consent of all partitioned owners, and thus new construction or renovation is extremely difficult. A kindergarten and other sites are composed of one parcel with the apartment land, but the boundaries of the ground are clearly divided. However, the owners of the kindergartens, etc. have no benefit to share the apartment land with the owners of apartments, and have strong needs to divide it. The reason why kindergarten sites, etc., were shared with the apartment site is that the private housing companies in the past have sold the houses conveniently by avoiding the partition registration procedure. Inconsistency between the actual use of land and the registration is a fundamental cause for shaking the ‘function of the real property registry as a disclosure system , and unnecessary registration of co-owned shares is hindering efficiency in national land development, urban maintenance, and tax administration. Therefore, resolving such inconsistency from the actual situation is necessary not only for the protection of the interests of the right holder but also for the restoration of the function of a registry as a disclosure system, and for the administrative enforcement, such as national land development. However, in case that common-ownership has been already registered, it is necessary to divide the common property in the Civil Code, in which case the partition of the common property requires the participation of all partitioned owner. Therefore, if there are many common-owners, it is actually difficult to divide it. Considering these circumstances, for quickly and easily arranging the unnecessary common-ownership relationship on the land, the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Lands has been implemented as a type of a law in force only for a limited period of time over several times, but the unnecessary common-ownership relationship on the land has not been clarified yet. In this regard, this study reviewed the problems and the improvement points of the application of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Lands, which has been implemented over several times and is still implemented as a type of a law in force only for a limited period of time, and then proposed the improvement points. 주택사업자가 아파트를 분양하는 경우에 그 단지와 인접한 유치원, 근린생활시설 등을 함께 분양하는 경우가 있다. 유치원 등의 수분양자는 건물과 함께 그 부지를 분양받는데, 등기부에는 유치원 부지를 포함한 아파트 대지 전체에 대하여 공유지분으로 등기되는 경우가 종종 있다. 그런데 현실적으로 아파트를 분양받은 사람들과 유치원을 분양받은 사람은 대지를 함 께 공유하여야 할 공동관계가 전혀 없으며, 토지관련 행정 처리는 물론이고 상호간에 의미 없는 이해관계의 충돌로 서로에게 불편을 초래할 뿐이다. 해당토지에 대한 지적공부나 등기부를 열람하거나 등본을 발급받을 경우에 수수료를 많이 부담하며, 인근 지역의 토지에 비하여 가격이 낮아 재산상 불이익을 받는다. 또 유치원 건물의 개축 또는 신축하는 경우에 모든 구 분소유자의 동의를 받아야 하는데, 규모가 큰 아파트의 경우에는 동의를 받는 것이 사실상 불 가능하여 신축이나 개축이 어려운 상황이다. 유치원 등의 부지와 아파트 대지가 1필지로 되어 있더라도, 지상 경계는 명확하게 구분되어 있다. 아파트 구분소유자들이 아파트 대지를 함께 공유하는 것은 당연하지만, 유치원 등의 소유자는 아파트 구분소유자들과 함께 토지를 공유할 실익이 전혀 없다. 유치원 부지 등이 아파트 대지와 함께 1필지로 된 것은 과거 민간 주택사업자들이 분할등기 절차를 피하여 편의적 으로 주택을 분양한 것에 기인한다. 토지의 실제 사용현황과 등기의 불일치는 ‘공시제도로서 부동산 등기의 기능’을 근본적으로 동요시키는 원인이 되며, 불필요한 공유지분 등기는 국가의 국토개발, 도시정비, 조세행정 등에서 효율성을 저해하고 있다. 따라서 이와 같이 현실과 불일치하는 공유형태의 해소는 그 권리자 보호뿐만 아니라 공시 제도로서 등기부의 기능회복, 나아가 국가의 국토개발 등 행정 집행을 위해서도 필요하다. 그러나 이미 공유등기가 된 경우에는 민법상 공유물 분할로 정리하여야 하는데, 민법상 공유물 분할은 공유자 전원이 참여하여야하며 공유자 수가 많으면 현실적으로 분할이 어렵다. 이러한 사정을 감안하여 신속하고 간편하게 토지에 대한 불필요한 공유관계를 정리하기 위하여 ‘공유토지분할에 관한 특례법을 한시법의 형태로 제정하여 수차례 시행하였지만, 여전히 토지에 대한 불필요한 공유관계는 정리되고 있지 못한 실정이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 그동안 수차례 시행되었고 지금도 한시법의 형태로 시행되고 있는 ‘공유토지분할에 관한 특례법’의 적용상 문제점을 검토하고 개선점을 제시하였다.

저당권설정청구권에 관한 비교법적 고찰 - 스위스법을 중심으로 : 저당권설정청구권에 관한 비교법적 고찰

이춘원(Choon-Won Lee) 한국비교사법학회 2007 비교사법 Vol.14 No.4

탈법행위에 관한 소고

이춘원(Lee, Choonwon) 한국비교사법학회 2013 비교사법 Vol.20 No.1

오늘날 사적 자치는 강행규정에 의하여 많은 제한을 받고 있으며, 이러한 강행규정에 의하여 불이익을 받는 당사자는 계약의 형식을 변경하여 강행규정의 적용을 피하려고 하는 경우가 있는데, 이를 이른바 '탈법행위'라고 한다. 이러한 탈법행위는 형식상으로는 강행규정을 위반하지 않는 것처 럼 보이지만, 실질적으로는 강행규정을 위반한 것이다. 이러한 '탈법행위'에 대해서, 어떤 형태로든지 규제를 할 수 없다면 강행규정 에 의한 규제의 실효성은 크게 손상된다. 탈법행위에 대한 대처방법으로 법률의 해석 및 유추에 의하여 해결하면 되고 별도의 법리가 필요 없다는 견해도 있다. 그러나 법률의 해석 또는 유추에는 일정한 한계가 있으므로 탈법행위라는 독자적인 법리가 필요하며, 오히려 탈법행위 법리는 법률해석의 한계를 넘는 행위를 규율하는데, 그 의미가 있다. 법질서는 현저한 일탈행위를 배제할 수 있는 구조(self-defence system)를 그 속성으로 가지는데, 이것을 박탈해서는 안 된다. 탈법행위에 대해서 '공서의 확대'로 대응할 수 있다는 것은 너무 성급한 결론이며, 그것은 법치주의 원칙에 반하고, 무엇보다도 개인의 자유로운 사회적 경제적 활동을 위축시킬 우려가 있다. 비록 실정법 질서가 잠정적인 질서이라고 해도, 법질서에는 잠정적인 '권위'가 필요한 것이다. 따라서 탈법행위에 대한 대처는 규범적 방법과 행위적 방법이 모두 필요하다. 새로운 사회질서가 형성될 때까지의 단계에 있어서는 탈법의도를 요건으로 하여, 현저히 일탈된 행위의 효력을 부인한다고 하는 '행위적 접근(Meta 규범적 접근)'이 중요하며, 탈법행위가 사회 유형적으로 행해지게 되는 단계에서는 '규범적 접근방법'이 실효성이 있다. 띠라서 '행위적 접근방법'은 '규범적 접근방법'에 의하여 해소된다고 할 수 있다. Today, private autonomy is severely restricted by peremptory norm, and any party who suffers from disadvantage due to such peremptory norm often attempts to avoid the application of peremptory norm by changing the form of the contract, which is called as an "evasion of the law". Such evasion of the law does not violate peremptory norm as a matter of form, but actually violates peremptory. If it is impossible to regulate such evasion of the law in any form, effectiveness of regulation by peremptory norm will be significantly damaged. Some opinions suggest that an evasion of the law can be resolved by interpretation and analogy of law but a separate principle of law is not required. However, it is necessary to establish an independent principle of law because there is a limitation in interpretation of law or analogy. The implication in the legal principle regarding an evasion of the law is to regulate any act beyond the limitation of interpretation of law. The order of law has a self-defense system excluding significant deviation, and thus we should not take away this function from the order of law. The argument that 'expansion of good public order' is effective in coping with an evasion of the law is too hasty conclusion. It may be in contrast to the principle of constitutionalism and, moreover, lead to shrinking of social and economic activities of individuals. Even if the order of positive law is a tentative order, the law and order requires a tentative 'authority'. Therefore, coping with an evasion of the law requires a nonnative method as well as a behavioral method. A 'behavioral approach (Meta nonnative approach)', which does not accept the effect of significantly deviant act by putting an emphasis on an intention of an evasion of the law, is important in the stage where a new social order is formed while a 'normative approach' is effective in the stage where an evasion of the law is prevalent in the society. Therefore, a 'behavioral approach' will be expanded and developed into a 'normative approach' in certain stage.

중학교 학습자의 운동참여시간에 관한 기술-분석적 연구

이춘원(Lee Chun Won) 한국체육교육학회 1995 한국체육교육학회 학술발표대회 Vol.- No.-