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

      일본 민법개정시안에 있어서 소비자법의 위치 = The Position of Consumer law in the Draft for the Revision of Japanese Civil Code

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Drafts for the revision of Civil Code recently published by two groups of influential scholars in Japan - Kato and Uchida- show that the Civil Code is somehow relevant with the consumer law. From the viewpoint of Korean law, the featuring elements may be summarized as the following.
      First, both the Kato's draft and the Uchida's discuss incorporating consumer law into the Civil Code with priority given to the "Consumer Contract Act". Kato's draft is trying not only to generalize the misrepresentation rule of Consumer Contract Act as general rule of Civil Code, but also to connect some part of consumer contract rule of the Consumer Contract Act (and the Specific Commercial Transaction Act) by putting the references in the Civil Code. The Uchida's draft is more positive in terms of trying to incorporate the overall rule of Consumer Contract Act into the Civil Code. As a result, the Civil Code will have special consumer contract rules as showing below.
      Secondly, both of the Kato's draft and the Uchida's is using the method of generalization of consumer private law. The subject-matters of generalization common in the two drafts are 'misrepresentation' and 'obligation to provide information'. The generalization of consumer private law is not to integrate each of the provisions into the Civil Code as special rules applying only to the consumer contract, but to incorporate the spirit of "Consumer Contract Act" or consumer private law in the more generalized form. Accordingly, the scope of application is not limited to consumer contract.
      Thirdly, Kato's draft and Uchida's propose very different types of incorporating ways about whether to put special rules of consumer private law in the Civil Code, and if so, what way should be chosen. While Kato's draft adopted the incorporating way to guarantee a point connected to consumer lay by so-called putting the reference provisions in the Civil Code, Uchida's adopted the incorporating way to let the special rules of "Consumer Contract Act" (cancellation rights, the regulation of consumer contract provisions) maintain themselves by integrating them into the relevant parts of the Civil Code. These two ways of incorporation were the most controversial part in the process of drafting the revision of Civil Code regarding consumer law and the evaluations on them is now extremely divided. Thus, in the official drafting for the revision of Civil Code in Japan which will be in progress for a couple of years, it seems to be one of the biggest issues.
      Owing to the publication of the drafts with features as such, there have been the variety of models to refer for revision of Korean Civil Code. In particular, the ways of generalization and of reference are noticeable in that they are not found in the other legislations.
      번역하기

      Drafts for the revision of Civil Code recently published by two groups of influential scholars in Japan - Kato and Uchida- show that the Civil Code is somehow relevant with the consumer law. From the viewpoint of Korean law, the featuring elements may...

      Drafts for the revision of Civil Code recently published by two groups of influential scholars in Japan - Kato and Uchida- show that the Civil Code is somehow relevant with the consumer law. From the viewpoint of Korean law, the featuring elements may be summarized as the following.
      First, both the Kato's draft and the Uchida's discuss incorporating consumer law into the Civil Code with priority given to the "Consumer Contract Act". Kato's draft is trying not only to generalize the misrepresentation rule of Consumer Contract Act as general rule of Civil Code, but also to connect some part of consumer contract rule of the Consumer Contract Act (and the Specific Commercial Transaction Act) by putting the references in the Civil Code. The Uchida's draft is more positive in terms of trying to incorporate the overall rule of Consumer Contract Act into the Civil Code. As a result, the Civil Code will have special consumer contract rules as showing below.
      Secondly, both of the Kato's draft and the Uchida's is using the method of generalization of consumer private law. The subject-matters of generalization common in the two drafts are 'misrepresentation' and 'obligation to provide information'. The generalization of consumer private law is not to integrate each of the provisions into the Civil Code as special rules applying only to the consumer contract, but to incorporate the spirit of "Consumer Contract Act" or consumer private law in the more generalized form. Accordingly, the scope of application is not limited to consumer contract.
      Thirdly, Kato's draft and Uchida's propose very different types of incorporating ways about whether to put special rules of consumer private law in the Civil Code, and if so, what way should be chosen. While Kato's draft adopted the incorporating way to guarantee a point connected to consumer lay by so-called putting the reference provisions in the Civil Code, Uchida's adopted the incorporating way to let the special rules of "Consumer Contract Act" (cancellation rights, the regulation of consumer contract provisions) maintain themselves by integrating them into the relevant parts of the Civil Code. These two ways of incorporation were the most controversial part in the process of drafting the revision of Civil Code regarding consumer law and the evaluations on them is now extremely divided. Thus, in the official drafting for the revision of Civil Code in Japan which will be in progress for a couple of years, it seems to be one of the biggest issues.
      Owing to the publication of the drafts with features as such, there have been the variety of models to refer for revision of Korean Civil Code. In particular, the ways of generalization and of reference are noticeable in that they are not found in the other legislations.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 박수곤, "프랑스 소비자법에서의 물품의 품질보증제도의 전개 -물품의 계약부합성 담보방안을 중심으로-" 법학연구소 43 (43): 9-39, 2008

      2 서희석, "전자거래에서의 착오의 문제 서설" 한국재산법학회 24 (24): 1-38, 2007

      3 서희석, "일본 소비자계약법 5년의 성과와 평가" 한국민사법학회 39 (39): 85-136, 2007

      4 남궁술, "유럽연합 소비재매매지침의 프랑스 국내법수용 과정에서 일어난 논쟁에 관한 소고-‘법의 정체성’과 ‘법의 단일화’ 사이의 갈등-" 법학연구소 (27) : 305-338, 2007

      5 하경효, "소비자보호법의 통합수용 in:독일채권법의 현대화" 법문사 135-, 2003

      6 백경일, "소비자보호법의 존재의의 및 효용성에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 소비자보호법의 규범적 정당성과 경제적 실효성에 대한 분석 -" 법학연구소 49 (49): 247-292, 2009

      7 이병준, "민법에서의 소비자의 지위와 소비자특별법의 민법전에의 통합" 한국민사법학회 39 (39): 205-244, 2007

      8 권대우, "민법과 소비자보호법" 박영사 127-, 2007

      9 김상중, "매매계약 교섭 당사자의 잘못된 정보제공에 관한 상대방의 보호- 대판 1995.3.28, 93다62645 등을 계기로 한 체계적 논의의 발전을 위한 일 고찰 -" 한국민사법학회 (29) : 149-190, 2005

      10 김진우, "독일 소비자계약법의 동향과 전망 ―우리 민법학에의 시사점을 덧붙여―" 법학연구소 (30) : 19-57, 2008

      1 박수곤, "프랑스 소비자법에서의 물품의 품질보증제도의 전개 -물품의 계약부합성 담보방안을 중심으로-" 법학연구소 43 (43): 9-39, 2008

      2 서희석, "전자거래에서의 착오의 문제 서설" 한국재산법학회 24 (24): 1-38, 2007

      3 서희석, "일본 소비자계약법 5년의 성과와 평가" 한국민사법학회 39 (39): 85-136, 2007

      4 남궁술, "유럽연합 소비재매매지침의 프랑스 국내법수용 과정에서 일어난 논쟁에 관한 소고-‘법의 정체성’과 ‘법의 단일화’ 사이의 갈등-" 법학연구소 (27) : 305-338, 2007

      5 하경효, "소비자보호법의 통합수용 in:독일채권법의 현대화" 법문사 135-, 2003

      6 백경일, "소비자보호법의 존재의의 및 효용성에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 소비자보호법의 규범적 정당성과 경제적 실효성에 대한 분석 -" 법학연구소 49 (49): 247-292, 2009

      7 이병준, "민법에서의 소비자의 지위와 소비자특별법의 민법전에의 통합" 한국민사법학회 39 (39): 205-244, 2007

      8 권대우, "민법과 소비자보호법" 박영사 127-, 2007

      9 김상중, "매매계약 교섭 당사자의 잘못된 정보제공에 관한 상대방의 보호- 대판 1995.3.28, 93다62645 등을 계기로 한 체계적 논의의 발전을 위한 일 고찰 -" 한국민사법학회 (29) : 149-190, 2005

      10 김진우, "독일 소비자계약법의 동향과 전망 ―우리 민법학에의 시사점을 덧붙여―" 법학연구소 (30) : 19-57, 2008

      11 이병준, "독일 민법상의 소비자개념" 한국민사법학회 (26) : 171-203, 2004

      12 潮見佳男, "諸外国の消費者法における情報提供・不招請勧誘・適合性の原則"

      13 大村敦志, "消費者法[第3版]" 有斐閣 2007

      14 山本豊, "消費者契約私法のアイデンティティー─一般契約法と消費者契約法" (1) : 57-, 2008

      15 道垣内弘人, "消費者契約法と情報提供義務" (1200) : 49-, 2001

      16 後藤巻則, "消費者契約における契約締結過程の適正化と情報提供義務(1)" (49) : 25-, 1999

      17 野澤正充, "民法改正の国際的動向─フランス" (1362) : 31-, 2008

      18 岡孝, "民法改正の国際的動向─ドイツを中心に" (1362) : 26-, 2008

      19 松本恒雄, "民法改正と消費者法─総論─" (4) : 4-, 2009

      20 内田貴, "民法Ⅰ 総則・物権総論〔第3版〕" 東京大学出版会 2005

      21 加藤雅信, "日本民法典財産法改正試案" (1281) : 5-, 2009

      22 民法(債権法)改正検討委員会, "債権法改正の基本方針"

      23 シンポジウム資料, "債権法改正の基本方針"

      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
      2028 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2022-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2019-04-22 학회명변경 영문명 : The Association For Korean Law Of Property -> THE KOREAN SOCIETY OF PROPERTY LAW KCI등재
      2019-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2016-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2012-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2009-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2008-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2007-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보2차) KCI등재후보
      2006-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2005-10-14 학술지명변경 외국어명 : 미등록 -> THE JOURNAL OF PROPERTY LAW KCI등재후보
      2004-07-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.89 0.89 0.74
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.72 0.71 0.86 0.22
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼