I think it is necessary to review “actio de in rem verso” positively if considering the theoretical aspect of the law in order to solve the legal relationship in Korean civil law.
Nevertheless, it is questionable that our theories and precedents to deny “actio de in rem verso” because this right is not in accordance with the principles of contract law. The recognition of this right shall then depend on whether it has met the requirements for establishing the right to claim for unjust enrichment. However, as we have seen earlier, “actio de in rem verso” only have the nature of the right to claim unjust enrichment and return since common law. The Supreme Court has denied the “actio de in rem verso” on this ground. This violates the right of defense that the beneficiary can assert against the intermediary. This makes the loser superior to the general creditors of the intermediary. The loser passes the risk of the contract to the beneficiary. This is because it is contrary to the basic principle of contract law. Our Supreme Court completely denied the “actio de in rem verso” in 2002. Currently in Germany, France, Japan, and Korea, this is also discussed as part of the claim for the return of unjust enrichment. Then, the “actio de in rem verso” were no longer dealt with under contract, but in terms of claims for unjust enrichment and return. In the era of common law, the relative effect of contracts began to be recognized as a general principle of civil law. Later, son's capacity for rights was recognized and slavery became meaningless. At this time, the other party was entitled to claim the performance in accordance contract against the head of household or owner. Sons or slaves whose rights were not recognized could enter into contracts and the head of household or the owner to take the profit transferred through that contract. This is the right to claim the return of benefits transferred to others and it was called “actio de in rem verso” in Roman law. At that time, there is the right of the contracting party who has not received the payment, to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the third person.
#ACTIO DE IN REM VERSO FULL#
Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.Although one party to the contract fulfills its obligation to pay, the performance may result in a benefit to a third person who is not the other party to the contract. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
#ACTIO DE IN REM VERSO CODE#
The paper describes the nature of versio in rem in the Austrian Civil Code (provision of § 1041) and presents legal statements of the prominent exponents of the various legal schools of interwar Czechoslovakia, the legal traditionalists and the supporters of the School of Pure Law Theory. The scope of the changes made by the compilers is still uncertain and was a subject of extensive discussion among the legal scholars of the 19th century. The paper presents a brief overview of the origin and field of application of actio de in rem verso in classical Roman law and the transformation of the doctrine of versio in rem in the frame of Corpus Iuris Civilis. Abstract: This paper concerns of the doctrine of versio in rem (or actio de in rem verso) in the legal discussion in interwar Czechoslovakia.
0 kommentar(er)
