Earticle

초록

영어

As the court strictly decides the legitimacy of the expiration of future action in a suit of return claim against future injustice profits caused by land occupation, as the plaintiff argues, the court does not properly protect the creditor's right because it forces the creditor to sue multiple times within a time limit for the return claim and it results in increasing the expense of suit and getting the procedures complicated. Therefore, it is necessary to allow flexibility in deciding the future lawsuit qualification.
The court should not turn down the lawsuit by denying the lawsuit qualification for plaintiff due to the improper expiration period. The court rather should flexibly decide by executing the right of explanation to balance the gains of the plaintiff and the burden on the defendant by considering the cost of claim, the condition and the title of road occupation, and the law related knowledge of the parties with a view to the blance of interest of related parties.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론
  1. 장래이행의 소의 意義와 訴의 利益
 Ⅱ. 청구적격(권리보호자격)
  1. 서
  2. 청구적격과 ‘미리 청구할 필요’
  3. 장래 발생할 청구권(장래 부당이득반환청구권)의 청구적격
 Ⅲ. 미리 청구할 필요
  1. 의의
  2. 계속적·반복적 채무의 현재 이행기 도래분에 대해 불이행한 경우 장래 도래분에 대한 청구의 경우
  3. 임차물인도의 제소전화해의 미리 청구할 필요여부
 Ⅳ. 결론
  1. 장래 이행의 終期설정의 엄격성 완화
  2. 석명권행사
 참고문헌
 〈ABSTRACT〉

키워드

저자

• 김학기 [ Kim, Hak-Ki | 전북대학교 법학전문대학원 교수, 변호사, ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  원광법학 [Journal of Law research]

• 간기

  계간

• pISSN

  1598-429X

• eISSN

  2508-4526

• 수록기간

  1962~2026

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 360 DDC 340