[One Sip of a Book] Did You Know Legal Texts Have These Expressions?... "Ungrammatical Sentences in the Civil Code"

Some sentences encapsulate the entire content of a book, while others immediately resonate with readers, creating a point of connection with the work. Here, we introduce such meaningful excerpts from books. - Editor's Note

"Unless otherwise specified, a law shall become effective 20 days after its promulgation." - Article 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

Linguist Dr. Kim Sejoong, former head of the Public Language Support Division at the National Institute of Korean Language, points out that this is an ungrammatical sentence. The verb "to occur" is intransitive and does not require an object, so the correct expression should be "the effect occurs" rather than "causes the effect." Applying this standard, the author meticulously examined every sentence from Article 1 to Article 1118 of the Civil Code and identified more than 200 instances of ungrammatical sentences. The author notes, "The Korean used in the Civil Code dates back to the 1940s and 1950s, and because the Japanese Civil Code was heavily referenced, Japanese words and particles were transferred uncritically." He further argues, "Regardless of whether legal provisions are difficult or easy to understand, if they are grammatically incorrect, they must be corrected." This book contains examples of such ungrammatical sentences and the correct ways to express them.

The phrase "the fact of the missing person's survival" is reminiscent of the lyrics "the hometown where I lived" from the children's song "Spring in My Hometown." This song, which begins with "the hometown where I lived is a mountain village where flowers bloom," is so familiar that almost every Korean knows it. Because of this familiarity, few people question the phrase "the hometown where I lived." However, outside the context of the song, no one would say "the hometown where I lived"; instead, they would say "the hometown I lived in."

The verb "to violate" requires an object, just like "to love." The object should be marked with the particle "eul/reul." However, Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states, "an act that violates the provisions of the preceding paragraph," which is ungrammatical.

The phrase "within the scope that does not change the nature of the object or right of representation" is also questionable. The verb "to change" is intransitive, like "to gather" mentioned earlier, and does not require an object. "To change" means "for something to become something else or to acquire a different property," and it is used as "to change into ~" or "to change to ~," but not as "to change ~" with a direct object. Saying "to gather a person" is as incorrect as saying "to change ~."

There are numerous cases in the Civil Code where "-doeda" (to become) should be used instead of "-hada" (to do). A representative example is "from the time the condition is fulfilled," which should be "from the time the condition has been fulfilled." Grammatically and naturally, it should be "from the time the condition has been met," but the Civil Code states "from the time the condition met," which is ungrammatical. "From the time the condition met" is as incorrect as "from the time the condition has met."

Ungrammatical Sentences in the Civil Code | Written by Kim Sejoong | Dubakwi Publishing | 191 pages | 10,000 KRW

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.