RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      공동주택분양자의 하자담보책임기간에 관한 연구 - 헌법재판소 2008.7.31. 선고 2005헌가16 결정과 관련하여 - = A Study on the Period of Warranty of an Aggregate Building Seller - in Relation to the Decision of the Constitutional Court 2005Heunga16, July 31, 2008 -

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      In this treatise I have studied the Period of Warranty of an aggregate building seller in relation to the decision of the constitutional court.
      Before a revision of an Housing Act on May 26, 2005, both the Housing Act and an Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings regulated the warranty of an aggregate building respectively.
      The Supreme Court of Korea ruled that the owner of an aggregate building can make a claim for warranty within 10 years including all parts of a building. A short-term warranty under the Housing Act does not have an influence on exercising a right of claim for warranty under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings. The National Assembly of Korea revised both the Housing Act and an Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings simultaneously on May 26, 2005, so the article 46 of the Housing Act precedes the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings.
      Many scholars said that the revised Housing Act was unconstitutional, so a high court of justice asked for the decision of unconstitutionality. The Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that an article(an additional clause 3) of the Housing Act was unconstitutional.
      The Constitutional Court of Korea rejected the application that the article 46(1) and (3) of the Housing Act were unconstitutional, because the articles were not set forth as a premise in this case concerned. I think the articles 46(1) and (3) of the Housing Act are unconstitutional, so they should be ruled unconstitutional in case that the articles could be applied to the right case which satisfies the conditions when a lawsuit will be brought to the court someday.
      번역하기

      In this treatise I have studied the Period of Warranty of an aggregate building seller in relation to the decision of the constitutional court. Before a revision of an Housing Act on May 26, 2005, both the Housing Act and an Act on the Ownership and M...

      In this treatise I have studied the Period of Warranty of an aggregate building seller in relation to the decision of the constitutional court.
      Before a revision of an Housing Act on May 26, 2005, both the Housing Act and an Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings regulated the warranty of an aggregate building respectively.
      The Supreme Court of Korea ruled that the owner of an aggregate building can make a claim for warranty within 10 years including all parts of a building. A short-term warranty under the Housing Act does not have an influence on exercising a right of claim for warranty under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings. The National Assembly of Korea revised both the Housing Act and an Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings simultaneously on May 26, 2005, so the article 46 of the Housing Act precedes the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings.
      Many scholars said that the revised Housing Act was unconstitutional, so a high court of justice asked for the decision of unconstitutionality. The Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that an article(an additional clause 3) of the Housing Act was unconstitutional.
      The Constitutional Court of Korea rejected the application that the article 46(1) and (3) of the Housing Act were unconstitutional, because the articles were not set forth as a premise in this case concerned. I think the articles 46(1) and (3) of the Housing Act are unconstitutional, so they should be ruled unconstitutional in case that the articles could be applied to the right case which satisfies the conditions when a lawsuit will be brought to the court someday.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 권영성, "헌법학원론(2009년판)" 2009

      2 강재철, "하자보수에 관한 조정사례"

      3 곽윤직, "채권각론(제6판)" 박영사 2003

      4 尹載允, "집합건물의 하자담보책임에 관한 실무상 쟁점" 한국법학원 73 : 48-75, 2003

      5 이정민, "집합건물의 분양과 하자담보책임 -집합건물법 제9조와 관련한 몇가지 법적 쟁점에 관하여-" 38 : 2004

      6 진무성, "집합건물 하자담보책임과 관련한 법률적 쟁점" 대한변호사협회 (356) : 161-184, 2006

      7 오석락, "입증책임론(신판)" 박영사 2002

      8 이시윤, "신민사소송법" 박영사 2004

      9 노종찬, "공동주택의 하자담보책임기간"

      10 여훈구, "공동주택 분양자의 하자담보책임에 관한 몇 가지 문제점, in: 민사재판의 제문제 제12권" 12-, 2003

      1 권영성, "헌법학원론(2009년판)" 2009

      2 강재철, "하자보수에 관한 조정사례"

      3 곽윤직, "채권각론(제6판)" 박영사 2003

      4 尹載允, "집합건물의 하자담보책임에 관한 실무상 쟁점" 한국법학원 73 : 48-75, 2003

      5 이정민, "집합건물의 분양과 하자담보책임 -집합건물법 제9조와 관련한 몇가지 법적 쟁점에 관하여-" 38 : 2004

      6 진무성, "집합건물 하자담보책임과 관련한 법률적 쟁점" 대한변호사협회 (356) : 161-184, 2006

      7 오석락, "입증책임론(신판)" 박영사 2002

      8 이시윤, "신민사소송법" 박영사 2004

      9 노종찬, "공동주택의 하자담보책임기간"

      10 여훈구, "공동주택 분양자의 하자담보책임에 관한 몇 가지 문제점, in: 민사재판의 제문제 제12권" 12-, 2003

      11 윤재윤, "건설분쟁관계법" 박영사 2008

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2027 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2021-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2018-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2015-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2014-12-23 학회명변경 영문명 : Law Research Institute, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies -> The HUFS Law Research Institute KCI등재
      2014-12-22 학술지명변경 외국어명 : 미등록 -> HUFS Law Review KCI등재
      2011-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2008-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2007-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2005-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.97 0.97 0.75
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.72 0.69 0.856 0.38
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼