• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제13권5호
• /
• pp.223-233
• /
• 2013

경매에 있어 압류등기가 행해지면 부동산에 대한 처분제한의 효력이 공시되고, 그 후의 부동산 소유자에 의한 처분행위는 압류채권자 및 경락인에게 대항할 수 없어 그에 대한 관계에서 효력을 잃게 되므로, 위압류 또는 가압류에 대항할 수 없는 처분행위를 원인으로 한 등기는 직권말소된다. 따라서 가압류의 처분금지효에 의해 경락인에 대한 관계에서 상대적으로 소유권을 상실하는 승계인이 있는 경우, 관습상 법정지상권의 성립요건으로서 건물소유자와 토지소유자의 동일성은 가압류시점을 기준으로 판단하여야 한다. 실제로 부동산강제경매절차에 참여하는 이해관계인들도 가압류시점을 기준으로 하여 자신의 이해관계를 조정하므로, 가압류시(假押留時)가 아닌 경락시(競落時)를 기준으로 관습상 법정지상권을 인정할 경우 토지소유자에게는 불측의 손해를 초래하고, 건물소유자에게는 망외의 이익을 안겨주는 불합리한 결과가 초래될 수 있다. 대상판결이 이와 같은 취지에서 관여 대법관 전원일치의 전원합의체 판결로서 가압류시설(假押留時說)을 취하고, 이와 달리 경락시설(競落時說)을 취한 1990년 판결을 폐기한 것은 매우 타당하다.

• 한국병원경영학회지
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.123-144
• /
• 2009

Recently, a long strike by hospital labor union emerged as a serious social issue. During the Worldcup Games in June, 2002, labor strikes broke up at 'C', 'K' and other hospitals, and in 2007, 'Y' hospital suffered much from a strike. Such series of extreme labor disputes have awakened people of importance of a more stable labor-management relationship for the medical institutions responsible for people's health than any other business organization. The purpose of this study was to examine the labor-management disputes at 'Y' hospital in 2007 and 'C' and 'K' hospitals in 2002. The results of this study can be summarized as follows; First, requests of the labor union such as pay raise, reemployment of the irregular workers as regular employees and participation of the labor union in personnel affairs are the long-held or core issues suffered by the medical institutions. Such issues are not independent from each other but complicated with each other surrounding the pay raise. Accordingly, it is not easy to determine the genuine bone of issue for labor-management disputes. Second, the model type of disputes between labor and management at medical institutions may be strike. However, it is conceived that the type of disputes would be subject to change as the essential medical service area system began to be operated since 2008. Third, the common characteristic of the labor strike among the 3 sample hospitals was occupation of the hospital lobby for a sit-in strike to maximize the negative effects of strike. Article 42 (Prohibition of Violence) of Labor Union and Labor Relation Coordination Act prohibits occupation of production or other important business facilities. In addition, since Ministry of Labor interprets that the hospital lobby belongs to the important business facilities enumerated by Article 42 of the above act, occupation of the hospital lobby for a sit-in strike may be too controversial to be admitted as a fair act of labor dispute when its legitimacy should be judged. Fourth, the counter-measures taken by the hospitals against the strike were observance of the principle 'no labor no pay,' closure, legal action, accusation, claim for recovery of damage, provisional seizure, disciplinary punishment, etc., but the principle of 'no labor, no pay' was not applied in a fair manner by 'C' and 'K' hospitals. However, 'Y' hospital applied this principle thoroughly to the strike; the hospital conduced to correction of the wrong labor-management relationship by refusing inclusion in the labor collective agreement of a provision about payment of wage during the period of strike or labor union's request to that effect during a strike. In addition, 'Y' hospital took an effective measure to end the strike earlier by notifying the labor union of cancellation of the collective agreement and banning the unionists from entering the hospital.