Right of property or public good,

소개글

Right of property or public good,에 대한 보고서 자료입니다.

목차

1. Introduction
*Related statutes
Related statutes in Peacock and another vs. Custins and another
Related statutes in my case

2. Main subject 1: Summary
1) Peacock and another vs. Custins and another summary
2) Summary of my case

3. Main subject 2: Point of Issue
1) Point of issue in Peacock and another vs. Custins and another
2) Point of issue in my case

4. Main subject 3: Judgments for these two cases
1) Judgment for Peacock and another vs. Custins and another
2) Judgment for my case

5. Main subject 4: Similarities and differences

6. Conclusion

본문내용

hat to pave bricks and make sewer is the evidence that the government makes it a rule to use the whole C as a public road. However, the city official said if a private owner insisted his right, his claim should be accepted.
5. Main subject 4:
Similarities and differences
These 2 cases deal with the right of way. One is about the right of way through a private land and the other is about the right of way with common good. Both of the land owners have some parts of lands which are used for others. The owners also hate others to use their lands as path.
But in the Peacock and another vs. Custins and another summary case, the road is located in the private land possessed by the defendant. But in my case, C is a public owned road and for the public purpose. Private structure must retreat when he build a new construct, and the owner of B get a benefit for a long time to use C as his customer's parking lot.
In the first case, the use of road for the blue land is the core of dispute. But in my case, it is the core of the dispute whether one can break into the public-owned road and refuse the use of others because some parts of road are private estate.
Both of these two cases are about 'the right of way.' Of course, the facts aren't exactly the same but I believe the dispute and regulations between the infringement of ownership and the public good are more interesting and useful, so I use my case for comparing with Peacock and another vs. Custins and another case.
6. Conclusion
The core of the capitalistic system is to guarantee the private property and to protect it by the private self-government. Some scholars insist that the public welfare' be the basic principle of Korean civil law by civil article 1 and article 2. But, the reform bills expressly state that the basic principle of Korean civil law is the private self-government. The capitalistic system changes its rule, so the unlimited right of a private person is not valid nowadays.
These two cases are about the private right which is associated with another person or public interest. The choice between the right of property and the public good is the core of these cases. In Peacock and another vs. Custins and another case, the dispute happens between individuals, but in my case, the dispute happens between the interest of individual and of the public.
After all, the judgments are the same. In the capitalistic system, the private self-government is the most important rule, and for it, the right of the private property is protected very strongly.
I spent three weeks because of this dispute. When I knew I lost, I was very disappointed and thought of residents who would be painful because of this result. I am still wondering if there exist some good statutes for my winning. However, I think it's the rule and someone can not help losing and accepting. I think of Socrates' saying,
"A law is a law, however undesirable it may be," and the answer of law is not public good but right of property.

키워드

private property,   civil law,   right of the way