In amendment of Civil Act, deletion of unnecessary and unreasonable provisions is as important as alteration of exiting provisions and establishment of new provisions. Therefore, in this thesis, I investigate provisions that need to be deleted in Korean Civil Act PartⅡ(Real Rights) ChapterⅥ(Chonsegwon) and Ⅷ(Pledge) as follows. Ⅰ. Civil Act Article 308 This provision provides very heavy responsibility of the person that contacted for chonchonse. As long as I think, This heavy responsibility can not be existed in real life. And it is right to load responsibility in the case that intention or negligence exit. So, this provision is unnecessary and unreasonable. Therefore, it is right to delete this provision. Ⅱ. Civil Act Article 336 and 337 This provisions provide sub-pledge on pledgee's responsibility. With all things concidered, pledgee can loan as a pledge for his claim and pledge, not using this sub-pledge. And these provisions do not square with Civil Act Article 324 Clause 2. Therefore, it is right to delete this provision. Ⅲ. Civil Act Article 339 This provision provides ban of contact for foreclosure. As long as I think, the object of contact for foreclosure can be realized by the redemption or etc. Especially, contact for foreclosure can be ruled reasonably by Civil Act Article 607 and 608. Therefore, it is right to delete Civil Act Article 339. Ⅳ. Civil Act Article 340 Because this Article Clause 1 can not protect anyone, this clause is not reason for exiting. therefore, it is right to delete this clause. And, in the case of deleting this clause, Civil Act Article 340 Clause 2 is not reason for exiting. Therefore, it is right to delete this clause. Ⅴ. Civil Act Article 347 This provision provides about delivery of documents evidencing obligation. This provision is applied to setting up pledge for nominative claim. As long as I think, nominative claim is not linked inseparablly by documents evidencing the claim. So, this provision is scarcely exiting-value. therefore, it is right to delete this provision. Ⅵ. Civil Act Article 348 This provision provides pledge against mortgage claim and additional registration of pledge. As long as I think, this provision is against Civil Act Article 186 and 187 that provide fundmental rules on changes in real rights over immovables. therefore, it is right to delete this provision.

In amendment of Civil Act, deletion of unnecessary and unreasonable provisions is as important as alteration of exiting provisions and establishment of new provisions. Therefore, in this thesis, I investigate provisions that need to be deleted in Korean Civil Act PartⅡ(Real Rights) ChapterⅥ(Chonsegwon) and Ⅷ(Pledge) as follows. Ⅰ. Civil Act Article 308 This provision provides very heavy responsibility of the person that contacted for chonchonse. As long as I think, This heavy responsibility can not be existed in real life. And it is right to load responsibility in the case that intention or negligence exit. So, this provision is unnecessary and unreasonable. Therefore, it is right to delete this provision. Ⅱ. Civil Act Article 336 and 337 This provisions provide sub-pledge on pledgee's responsibility. With all things concidered, pledgee can loan as a pledge for his claim and pledge, not using this sub-pledge. And these provisions do not square with Civil Act Article 324 Clause 2. Therefore, it is right to delete this provision. Ⅲ. Civil Act Article 339 This provision provides ban of contact for foreclosure. As long as I think, the object of contact for foreclosure can be realized by the redemption or etc. Especially, contact for foreclosure can be ruled reasonably by Civil Act Article 607 and 608. Therefore, it is right to delete Civil Act Article 339. Ⅳ. Civil Act Article 340 Because this Article Clause 1 can not protect anyone, this clause is not reason for exiting. therefore, it is right to delete this clause. And, in the case of deleting this clause, Civil Act Article 340 Clause 2 is not reason for exiting. Therefore, it is right to delete this clause. Ⅴ. Civil Act Article 347 This provision provides about delivery of documents evidencing obligation. This provision is applied to setting up pledge for nominative claim. As long as I think, nominative claim is not linked inseparablly by documents evidencing the claim. So, this provision is scarcely exiting-value. therefore, it is right to delete this provision. Ⅵ. Civil Act Article 348 This provision provides pledge against mortgage claim and additional registration of pledge. As long as I think, this provision is against Civil Act Article 186 and 187 that provide fundmental rules on changes in real rights over immovables. therefore, it is right to delete this provision.

, , , , , , , ,

Amendment of Civil Act, Deletion of Provisions in Civil Act, Civil Act Article 308, Civil Act Article 336, Civil Act Article 337, Civil Act Article 339, Civil Act Article 340, Civil Act Article 347, Civil Act Article 348