현재 위치
Home
연구논문
지명채권양도 후 기본관계가 해제된 경우 부당이득반환
Who is the profiteer when the original contract between the assignor and the obligor is cancelled after the obligor has paid off to the assignee?
-
- 발행기관
- 원광대학교 법학연구소 바로가기
-
- 간행물
- 원광법학 KCI 등재 바로가기
-
- 통권
- 제27집 제3호 (2011.09)바로가기
-
- 페이지
- pp.249-273
-
- 저자
-
- 언어
- 한국어(KOR)
-
- URL
- https://www.earticle.net/Article/A153139
원문정보
초록
- 영어
- In case, after C sells an object to B and B resells it to A and A directly pays the price to C in accordance with B's requests, the contract between A and B is canceled, should the money C received be considered unjust enrichment in relation to the A? Scholars of Korea and Germany have concurred with the view that the other party of the claim for refund is not C, but B. The reason is as follows: The reason A pays C is because A has a legal obligation to pay not to C, but B. The payment to C by A is the result of combining or shortening the payment process from A to B and from B to C. Therefore, if the contract between A and B is canceled, the restitution of unjust enrichment should take place between A and B. But the rulings of Supreme Court and the opinions of scholars did not concur in solving the similar problem in relation to the assignment between A and B. In case the contract between the obligor and the original obligee(assignor) is canceled after the credit of the latter is transferred and assignee of the credit is paid off, against whom does the obligor file a lawsuit for repayment? While the Supreme Court ruled that it is the assignee who should repay, I think that the original obligee(assignor) is under obligation to repay. The reasons are as follows: The obligor should not suffer a disadvantage in relation to the assignment. In case of unjust enrichment, originally the obligor bears the insolvency risk of the original obligee, the other party of the contract, but has no reason that he should bear the risk of the assignee. If the obligor cannot recover from the original obligee and should get back his payment from the assignee, he is unjustly subjected to a disadvantage in case that the assignee runs out of his funds.
목차
I. 문제의 제기
II. 학설⋅판례의 개요
III. 판례⋅학설의 검토
IV. 결어
참고문헌
ABSTRACT
키워드
채권양도 부당이득과 삼각관계 무자력위험 해제에서 보호되는 제3자 민법 제548조 지시사례 제3자를 위한 계약 credit transfer triangle in unjust enrichment a contract for the benefit of a third party insolvency Civil Act article 548 the third party protected from cancellation.저자
간행물 정보
발행기관
-
- 발행기관명
- 원광대학교 법학연구소 [THE LAW RESEARCH INSTITUTE WONKWANG UNIVERSTIY]
- 설립연도
- 1961
- 분야
- 사회과학>법학
- 소개
- 법에 대한 이론적 · 실제적 연구를 수행하고 그 결과를 발표하여 한국과 지역사회의 법률문화의 발전에 기여함을 목적으로 설립되었으며 법학일반이론과 법학교육방법 등의 연구와 법률구조안내 및 상담을 한다
간행물
-
- 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
이 권호 내 다른 논문 / 원광법학 제27집 제3호
피인용수 : 0건 (자료제공 : 네이버학술정보)
함께 이용한 논문 이 논문을 다운로드한 분들이 이용한 다른 논문입니다.
출처 : 네이버학술정보
0개의 논문이 장바구니에 담겼습니다.