무권대리와 상속 = Unauthorized Agency and Inheritance

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

  In case of an unauthorized agency, a principal may accept or reject its legal effect by electing ratification. If a principal rejects ratification, an unauthorized agent shall indemnify and hold harmless a bona-fide third party against all damage or perform an obligation by his selection. However, in the event that an unauthorized agent inherits the status of a principal due to the death of the principal after unauthorized act has occurred and vice versa, the status as both a principal and an unauthorized agent will belong to the same person. In addition, it may occur that a third party will inherit the status of both a principal and an unauthorized agent concurrently or consecutively. In such cases, one problem is that whether such unauthorized agency will be deemed to be legally effective as a matter of course or the status of a principal and an unauthorized agent will coexist. Furthermore, the other problem is that whether there is any difference between exclusive inheritance and joint inheritance in such case.<BR>  Under the theory of validity as a matter of course, in the event that an unauthorized agent will succeed to the status of a principal by inheritance, such unauthorized act will be deemed as validity as a matter of course. The theoretical bases of the theory of validity as a matter of course are as follows: First, this theory maintains that the act of an unauthorized agent will be originally identical with that of an authorized agent so far as he or she will take all responsibilities under section 135 of the civil code. Second, it maintains that the status as a principal and the status as an unauthorized agent will be mixed and merged. Third, it maintains that the principal’s rejection of ratification is against the principle of good faith. On the other side, the weak points of the theory of theory of validity as a matter of course are as follows: The first problem is that even though an unauthorized agent may not take the responsibility in certain cases, he will be unreasonably liable for his acts because of the fact that he has inherited the status of a principal in such cases. The second problem is that since unauthorized agency is a kind of uncertain and unstable act and thus the right to ratify such act will belong to a principal as well as a third party, it is unreasonable that an unauthorized agent loses such right or interest for the fact of his inheritance of the principal’s status. The third problem is that if such unauthorized act is deemed as being valid as a matter of course, the right or interest of joint successor will be infringed because he may not exercise the right to reject ratification.<BR>  The theory of qualification coexistence maintains that an unauthorized agent’s act may not be deem as being valid or invalid as a matter of course and yet an unauthorized agent is prohibited from rejecting ratification under the principle of good faith even though he is assigned the right to ratify or reject such act from a principal. However, even if the coexistence of both qualifications is accepted, a third party may elect to hold an unauthorized agent liable and demand for his performance under section 135 of the civil code in the event that an unauthorized agent or a principal may reject to ratify such unauthorized act. In such case, the difficult point is that an unauthorized agent will be under the same legal effect with the case as if he is a principal because he shall discharge his obligations and a third party will benefit such performance of obligations.<BR>  Approaching the matter of an unauthorized agency and inheritance as the matter of how this conflict of legal effect will be resolved and given a priority, the conflict of legal effect will be deemed as the conflict of relationship between right and obligation. If a person who inherits the status of an unauthorized agent is not required to perform any liability, this is a problem of how

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 머리말
  Ⅱ. 우리나라의 판례 및 학설
  Ⅲ. 일본의 판례 및 학설
  Ⅳ. 무권대리와 상속의 법적구성에 관한 고찰
  Ⅴ. 맺음말
  【참고문헌】
  [Abstract]
  

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김증한, "주석 민법총칙(下)" 한국사법행정학회 1980

2 제철웅, "상속이 무권대리 또는 무권리자의 처분행위에 미치는 효력" 법문사 2002

3 김용한, "민법총칙론(재전정판)" 박영사 1993

4 곽윤직, "민법총칙〔민법강의Ⅰ〕(제7판)" 박영사 2004

5 김증한, "민법총칙(제9판)" 박영사 1995

6 장경학, "민법총칙(제3판)" 법문사 1992

7 김주수, "민법총칙(제2판)" 삼영사 1988

8 고상룡, "민법총칙(전정판)" 법문사 1999

9 김민중, "민법총칙" 두성사 1995

10 우상규, "민법총칙" 육법사 2002

11 이영준, "민법총칙" 박영사 1987

12 김성숙, "무권대리와 상속" 숭실대학교 법학연구소 7 :

13 고상룡, "무권대리와 상속" 월간고시 1983

14 장경학, "무권대리와 상속" 월간고시 1982

15 中川善之助, "相?法" 有斐閣 1974

16 杉之原舜一, "無?代理行?と代理人の相?" 9 (9):

17 於保不二雄, "無?代理人が本人を相?したる場合と無?代理行?の主張" 1 (1):

18 長尾治助, "無?代理人が?分目的物を取得した場合の法律?係" 208 :

19 高野竹三, "無?代理と相?, 民法の?点１" 有斐閣 1985

20 水?芳?, "無?代理と相?, ?山?三ㆍ?木三朗ㆍ石川利夫先生還?記念 ?現代民法?の基本問題(下)" 第一法規出版 1983

21 高森哉子, "無?代理と相?" 法律文化社 2006

22 棚村政行, "無?代理と相?" 森泉章?授還?記念論集?現代判例民法?の課題? 法?書院 1988

23 金山正信, "無?代理と相?" 194 :

24 堀切忠和, "無?代理と相" 196 :

25 萩本修, "無?代理と相" 107 :

26 谷口知平, "本人が無?代理人を相?した場合における無?代理行?の?力" 47 (47):

27 四宮和夫, "判例批評" 判例民事法 1942

28 ?積重遠, "判例批評" 判例民事法 1927

29 川添利起, "判例批評" 14 (14):

30 松久三四彦, "他人物?買および無?代理等と相?ㆍ取得" 法?書院 2003

31 安永正昭, "?無?代理と相??における理論上の諸問題" 42 (42):