상세검색
최근 검색어 전체 삭제
다국어입력
즐겨찾기0
法學硏究 第33卷 第1號.jpg
KCI등재 학술저널

소멸시효의 대상

각론적인 검토를 중심으로

According to Article 162 of the Civil Code, The extinctive prescription of a claim shall become complete if not exercised for a period of ten years, the extinctive prescription of property rights, other than a claim and ownership, shall become complete if not exercised for a period of twenty years. In other words, our Civil Code makes property rights the subject of the extinctive prescription(statute of limitations). To sum up this article, it is as follows: 1. Ownership is not subject to the statute of limitations. 2. Whether an Anspruch(right to claims) is subject to a statute of limitations depends on what the legal nature of the Anspruch is. Thus, while the right can be granted in a number of situations, the statute of limitation against the right differs depending on why the right is granted and what kind of legal nature it has. For example, whether the right to claim(Anspruch) registration cannot be enforced due to statute of limititations or not is the most important in resolving such issues. The right to claim(Anspruch) registration under the contract of sale corresponds to a claims as property right, and therefore has a statute of limitations of 10 years. However, it would be reasonable to assume that claim(Anspruch) based on a real right is not subject to a statute of limitations. 3. The right to formation(Gestaltungsrechte) can also be regarded as a property right, if it can be subject to a statute of limitations. 4. The property rights, other than a claim and ownership will have to be different whether it is subject to a statute of limitations. In other words, the outcome will vary depending on how the right is exercised.

Ⅰ. 들어가는 말

Ⅱ. 채권과 청구권의 관계

Ⅲ. 소멸시효의 대상인지여부에 문제되는 권리에 대한 각론적 검토

Ⅳ. 맺음말

로딩중