@article{ART002349276},
author={Bae, Sung Ho},
title={A Scope of Return of The Claim for the substitute for Excess Profits},
journal={DONG-A LAW REVIEW},
issn={1225-3405},
year={2018},
number={79},
pages={151-179},
doi={10.31839/DALR.2018.05.79.151}
TY - JOUR
AU - Bae, Sung Ho
TI - A Scope of Return of The Claim for the substitute for Excess Profits
JO - DONG-A LAW REVIEW
PY - 2018
VL - null
IS - 79
PB - The Institute for Legal Studies Dong-A University
SP - 151
EP - 179
SN - 1225-3405
AB - The right to claim the object can be found in the sense that it is the correction of the distribution of property value based on the ideology of equity. If the benefit is not available in the bond relationship, the debtor will be free from the bond law restraint and avoid the obligation to pay. As a result, the debtor obtains the right to claim the object of benefit or the object of benefit. These would have belonged to the creditor if they had fulfilled their original benefits, so handing it over to the creditor is in accordance with the ideology of equity.
Given that the insurance premiums are the object of the benefit that is replaced by the purpose of the accidental fire, it can not be denied that it is equitable to repay the insurance premiums to the creditor who has paid the benefit risk. It is a contradiction in itself to deny the objectivity of the insurance because the seller concludes the insurance contract for the fire damage for the benefit object because the seller bears the risk of loss of the benefit object and fulfills the duty of payment. Whether it will be covered by insurance or claim claims is considered because of the fact that the claim for the purpose of the right to claim the right to adjust the distribution of the value of the property that is not actually legitimate and the claim for the claim is caused by the accident.
The right to claim is a separate system from the right to claim the return of unfair advantage. There is no inevitable reason to coincide with the scope of return of unfair advantage. According to the principle of the damages law or the principle of the unfair advantage law, it is true that even if there is profit that exceeds the damage or loss caused, it can not be claimed. However, it is unreasonable to apply this principle to the claimant claim that claims instead of the implementation of the benefit. Since the right to claim is based on the principle of the object, it is reasonable to deliver the entire profit obtained to the creditor without asking the reason for the liability of the debtor in the legal effect as long as the claim is recognized.
KW - Impossibility of Performance;Claim for the substitute;excess profit;liability for risk;unjust enrichment;compensation for damage
DO - 10.31839/DALR.2018.05.79.151
ER -
Bae, Sung Ho. (2018). A Scope of Return of The Claim for the substitute for Excess Profits. DONG-A LAW REVIEW, 79, 151-179.
Bae, Sung Ho. 2018, "A Scope of Return of The Claim for the substitute for Excess Profits", DONG-A LAW REVIEW, no.79, pp.151-179. Available from: doi:10.31839/DALR.2018.05.79.151
Bae, Sung Ho "A Scope of Return of The Claim for the substitute for Excess Profits" DONG-A LAW REVIEW 79 pp.151-179 (2018) : 151.
Bae, Sung Ho. A Scope of Return of The Claim for the substitute for Excess Profits. 2018; 79 : 151-179. Available from: doi:10.31839/DALR.2018.05.79.151
Bae, Sung Ho. "A Scope of Return of The Claim for the substitute for Excess Profits" DONG-A LAW REVIEW no.79(2018) : 151-179.doi: 10.31839/DALR.2018.05.79.151
Bae, Sung Ho. A Scope of Return of The Claim for the substitute for Excess Profits. DONG-A LAW REVIEW, 79, 151-179. doi: 10.31839/DALR.2018.05.79.151
Bae, Sung Ho. A Scope of Return of The Claim for the substitute for Excess Profits. DONG-A LAW REVIEW. 2018; 79 151-179. doi: 10.31839/DALR.2018.05.79.151
Bae, Sung Ho. A Scope of Return of The Claim for the substitute for Excess Profits. 2018; 79 : 151-179. Available from: doi:10.31839/DALR.2018.05.79.151
Bae, Sung Ho. "A Scope of Return of The Claim for the substitute for Excess Profits" DONG-A LAW REVIEW no.79(2018) : 151-179.doi: 10.31839/DALR.2018.05.79.151