Earticle

This paper examines what discussed and suggested concerning the competition of provisional attachment and injunction about the right to registration of ownership transfer. Precedents adopted theory by according to priority of execution in the competition of provisional attachment and injunction about real estate. But, Precedents adopted theory of provisional attachment priority in the competition of provisional attachment and injunction about the right to registration of ownership transfer. These attitudes of precedents are not convincing. Scholars and Judges are much discussed that the problems of competition to provisional attachment and injunction about the right to registration of ownership transfer. The first opinion is theory of provisional attachment priority. This theory claims that Civil Execution Act was given a stand alone collection right to provisional attachment. But, Injunction was not given a stand alone collection right, only has legal position of general creditor. Therefore, Injunction creditors are only protected by Obligee's Right of Subrogation to the Obligor as general creditors. The second opinion is theory of execution priority. This theory claims that Civil Law and Civil Execution Act allow not method of public announcement about the right to registration of ownership transfer. In the end, Courts have to decide the ranking of provisional attachment and injunction through Civil Law §450. I insists theory of execution priority. The reasons, Injunction creditors keeps ahead of provisional attachment creditors in the real estate contract.

A lien was initially developed from the right of 'exceptio doli' according to Roman Law to realize the fáirness dòctrine between two parties as a legal right granted by a way of security in the case where a person who occupies another's possession can refuse the right to return it until he/she is fully reimbursed for the bonds that they are entitled to related to the possession that they hold. Article 320 (1) of the Korean Civil Code that defines lien as one of the statutory real right granted by way of security requires expresses the connection-relation between a establishment as a claim arising with respect claim and subject matter applicable as an essential condition to determine its a thing or marketable securities and it leaves the issue of what claim would be applicable to the secured claim of the lien for the academic treaties and cases to cause conflicting opinions. When the person that possess does real estate has the credit that occurred about the real estate, the real estate lien forces repayment of the actually cover security credit as collateral security which can detain you until repayment receives the credit. Take the principle of undertaking that repays credit secured in line again in buyer of the actually real estate auction in 5 91 Clause of Article of the Civil Execution Act; there is it, but there is not report duty of line in real estate auction procedure. Therefore, buyer is the fact that cannot but collide with a lienor consisting of only the possession without the registration each other because the lienor does not say the formation right or wrong of the lien to the person who is going to do. The civil law takes the situation protecting the cover security credit of the lien to break a principle of the creditor equality by constituting a lien in legal right of the mortgagee relative to the credit of other creditors again; there is it. I explained about the main contents of Lien System and dealt with the important contents of Lien System and suggested especially the problems and improvements in connection with Essential Condition in Lien System.

Related to use of the Apartment housing, it is enough to cause problems of confrontation between residents in condition of jointly using such building, land, and affiliated facilities. Therefore, the norms is needed between each user. In other words, it is needed to secure the management of Apartment Housing and the effective adjustment of using it. The purpose of this thesis is to propose improved Management bylaws of Apartment housing so that the inhabitant or resident of Apartment housing can manage their own buildings etc. in efficient management. And this thesis point out several problems of current Management bylaws and propose improved such bylaws by analyzing related laws such as Korean Condominium Act and Housing Act. It is also important that user, as inhabitant or resident of Apartment housing, provide positive consciousness change for autonomous management.

The amended Law of Obligations of Germany includes all sorts of benefit obstacles in its superordinate concept that is the violation of duty, such as the Law of Benefit Obstacles combines the Law of Warranty Liability. It is obvious that these contents of the amended Law of Obligations of Germany would have an enormous effect on the amendments works and interpretations of the Civil Law of Korea although they left a fundamental reassessment problem on the cancellation system in all the countries who had succeeded to the Law of Germany. There would be no room for application of Article 323, Clause 4, and the right of cancellation of the contract due to the impossibility of performance would be admitted in case it is certain to foresee the impossibility of performance or excessive expenditure for fulfillment. For this reason, as a matter of fact, it can be made a passive judgement in case Article 323, Clause 4 of the Civil Law of Germany is applied because it can actually be accepted as the anticipatory fulfillment refusal. However, as mentioned earlier, it is difficult to settle by the regulation of impossibility in case there are concerns about delay or delivery of the object with flaw in the building contract. In addition, the monetary debt cannot be settled by the regulation of impossibility of performance because there is no room to be an impossibility, and in this case, it is possible to cancel by applying Article 323, Clause 4, and Article 323, Clause 4 will be effective. It seems to me that Article 323, Clause 4 of the Civil Law of Germany has actually an important meaning to interpret the subject more widely such as treating the general problem of endangerment of the contract, not confining to the anticipatory fulfillment refusal. Then, it would be reasonable for the legal principles of the anticipatory fulfillment refusal to construct the legal principles as new type of benefit obstacles named 'the endangerment of fulfillment' subsumed by Article 323, Clause 4 of the Civil Law of Germany. However, the premise of constructing the legal principles should be examined further based on the difference between the amended Law of Obligations of Germany and the Civil Law of Korea, and it will be a task ahead of us.

This article explores liability for torts of minor children in the United States. In the United States, there have been three major stages in the development of jurisprudence regarding parental civil liability. The first stage is the traditional common law. At common law, parents were not responsible for the torts of their minor children. In fact, throughout jurisdictions embracing common law jurisprudence, the parent-child relationship, alone, is not a sufficient ground for enforcing civil liability against parents for the tortious acts of their minor children. However, the fact that minors typically do not have sufficient assets to pay for their actions led the change of formation of the parent liability law in the area. The second stage is an exception to the common law tradition, enumerated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 316, which holds parents liable, in certain circumstances, for the torts of their minor children. The Restatement test concentrates on parents' ability to control their children and focuses on the necessity and opportunity to exercise parental control. The third stage is the creation of state statutes that hold parents liable for specific conducts of their minor children. Statutorily defined parental responsibility laws have expanded the common law by making parents liable for torts of their minor children. These statutes enforce a form of strict liability on the parents where the common law does not. And they intends to compensate the victims of the torts of children, and to encourage parents to better discipline their children.

This paper discusses a scheme for protecting inventions, distributed in the form of applications that can be installed on smart devices (hereinafter referred to as “app-related inventions”), based on intellectual property laws and the protection limits of the current copyright law and patent law. App-related inventions can be treated in the same manner as software-related inventions in the current patent law, and can be granted patents if they fulfill predetermined requirements. However, since in the case of app-related inventions, the developer of an application and the manufacturer of a smart device are not normally subject to a subordinate-superior or supervisory relationship and independently perform their respective practices without any economic connection therebetween, a problem arises in that the app-related inventions cannot be substantially protected by the current laws even when they have been patented. That is, in the case of an app-related invention in which one or more software elements are combined with one or more hardware elements, a contradiction may occur in that the practice of a patented invention by a single agent is recognized as an infringement but the practice of the patented invention by a plurality of agents is not recognized as an infringement. This paper discusses a scheme for mitigating the all elements rule and using the mitigated rule and a scheme for introducing the provisions of induced infringement and contributory infringement to the patent law and calling upon the developer of software or an application to take responsibility for infringement in order to substantially protect app-related inventions that are practiced by a plurality of agents.