근질권

15:17 Mar 21, 2019 

You're right. I don't think "right to pledge" is correct in the noun form, but "right of pledge" is used. It seems to be more common internationally than in the US. I suspect lien means the same thing, especially in the US, but the main idea of using "right" and "pledge" isn't as far off as I thought. I apologize for characterizing the materials you used as Konglish.

15:07 Mar 21, 2019 

As you have also said that 근질권 and 근저당권 can be distinguished from 질권 and 저당권 by adding open-ended in front of 질권 and 저당권 respectively (thank you for letting me know that 'open-ended' is the right expression instead of 'open end'), not the issue is that whether 'right to pledge' is the right expression of '질권'. I searched Google to find that 'right to pledge' or pledge right' is used in many foreign artcles. I do not have time to check whether those articles are written by English natives or not. You said we could use lien for both 유지권 and 질권. But I am not happy with the idea as in some documents both of the terms are used, when we have to distinguish them without question. Putting the word 'ordinary' in front of lien to distinguish 유치권 from 저당권 or 질권 does not seem to be a polished way. So if 'right of pledge' is used in English (even though by not English natives and I have to distinguish those words from each other, I will go for 'right of pledge' unless you further help me to clearly distiguish 유치권, 질권, 근질권, 저당권, 근저당권 in English from each other. Lastly, it was rude for you to say that I found the answer in a Konglish material. In any case thank you for having helpe me with this.

14:16 Mar 21, 2019 

They are both forms of liens; we do not say "right to pledge". I realize the systems are different, so if you want to distinguish, you might say "security-specific lien" for 질권 and "open-ended [not "open-end"] lien" or "non-security-specific lien" for 근질권 or something. But I'm not sure you necessarily need to wrap all the context of the Korean system into the English translation. I mean, that's the balance we have to achieve in translation. In a document like you're working on, it does need to be precise, but you can't take that to such an extreme that it isn't proper English anymore. Also, are you sure 예금계좌 is "savings account"? Unless you know more about the account from context, I think "bank account" is better.

13:58 Mar 21, 2019 

You may not understand the difference between your system and Korean system. Then can you tell me the difference between 질권 and 근질권?

13:43 Mar 21, 2019 

Did you find that answer in Konglish materials about translating Korean to English? Or did you actually find that in English documents? Nobody writes that in English...

13:40 Mar 21, 2019 

With help from another person, I found that the right translation of '예금 계좌에 대한 근질권' is "Right to open-end pledge on savings account'.