529 0

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.author김차동-
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-16T06:25:35Z-
dc.date.available2018-03-16T06:25:35Z-
dc.date.issued2014-03-
dc.identifier.citation법학논총, vol.31, no.1[2014], pp. 447-470 (24 pages)en_US
dc.identifier.issn1225-228x-
dc.identifier.urihttp://kiss.kstudy.com/thesis/thesis-view.asp?key=3233834-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11754/47979-
dc.description.abstractA right can be defined as a legally protected interest. What kinds of protection shall be given to the right? Lawyers reply to the question that it is a remedy. Law and economists reply to the question indicating two rules, that are property rule and liability rule. Property rule is considered as basic protection to the right. To the very exceptional cases, liability rule can be applied. Under property rule, infringement to the right must be enjoined by injunctive reliefs. As legal systems have been evolved, direct prevention has been refrained and replaced by sanctions. Sanctions are originated with an idea of retribution. But they are frequently used to deter infringement. We can find a lot of sanctions such as damages, administrative fines, surcharges, fines, imprisonment and etc. Such sanctions are categorized as private, administrative, and criminal ones. Nowadays, the Korean Supreme Court and Korean Constitutional Court have opinions that private sanctions can not be substituted by administrative or criminal ones and vice versa. But, law and economists have different opinions. They frequently wrote several papers on the substitutability among the three remedies. In a certain circumstance, private law enforcement has comparative advantage against public law enforcement including administrative and criminal ones. Here are a list of considerations on the comparative advantage such as costs, incentives, policy and procedure of law enforcement. There is not an absolute solution on the issue but only second best solution.en_US
dc.language.isoko_KRen_US
dc.publisher한양대학교 법학연구소en_US
dc.subject사적집행en_US
dc.subject공적집행en_US
dc.subject비교우위en_US
dc.subject금지청구en_US
dc.subject손해배상en_US
dc.subject과징금en_US
dc.subject벌금en_US
dc.subject징역형en_US
dc.subjectprivate enforcementen_US
dc.subjectpublic enforcementen_US
dc.subjectcomparative advantageen_US
dc.subjectinjunctionen_US
dc.subjectdamagesen_US
dc.subjectsurchargeen_US
dc.subjectfineen_US
dc.subjectimprisonmenten_US
dc.title민사적 구제수단의 행정,형사적 구제수단에 대한 비교우위en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.relation.no제1호-
dc.relation.volume제31집-
dc.relation.page447-470-
dc.relation.journal법학논총-
dc.contributor.googleauthor김차동-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKim, Cha Dong-
dc.relation.code2014001674-
dc.sector.campusS-
dc.sector.daehakSCHOOL OF LAW[S]-
dc.sector.departmentHanyang University Law School-
dc.identifier.pidkjd1206-
Appears in Collections:
SCHOOL OF LAW[S](법학전문대학원) > Hanyang University Law School(법학전문대학원) > Articles
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

BROWSE