미등기 건물의 법정지상권에 관한 연구

민경호 건국대학교 부동산대학원 2015 국내석사

숨어 있는 권리가 존재할 수 있는 미등기 건물이나 무허가 건물에 대한 권리분석은 상당히 난해한 편이다. 건축 중에 있는 미등기건물에 얽혀 있는 권리들 중에서 유치권이 가장 대표적이지만 특히 법정지상권에 대한 권리분석이 어렵고도 중요한 문제이다. 즉 건축 중에 있는 건물의 소유를 위한 법정지상권 자체가 성립하는지, 어느 정도의 건축이 진행되어야 법정지상권이 성립하는 독립한 건물로 인정될 수 있는지, 부동산의 일종인 건물로 인정받을 수 있기 위한 최소한의 요건은 무엇인지, 토지와 일체적으로 처분되는 토지의 부합물이나 종물로 인정하는 기준은 무엇인지, 부합물, 종물이 아닌 독립한 건물을 되는 기준은 무엇인지에 관한 이론과 판례를 정리하고 문제되고 있는 사례들을 분석하였다. 그리고 부동산 실무에서는 미등기 건물이나 미준공건물 자체에 대한 거래나 미등기 건물이 소재하는 토지에 대한 거래에서 예측하지 못한 법정지상권이 성립하는 관계로 이해관계인들이 피해를 보는 경우가 많다. 그래서 본 연구에서는 부동산의 매매, 증여, 교환 등의 법률행위나 부동산 강제경매, 공매 등의 법률의 규정에 의한 물권변동을 통해서 인정되는 관습법상의 법정지상권과 저당권실행경매를 통해 인정되는 민법 제366조의 법정지상권에 관한 내용을 중심으로 그 이론과 판례를 정리하였다. 나아가 미공시권리가 될 수 있는 관습법상의 법정지상권을 인정하기 보다는 법률행위에 의한 물권변동의 경우에는 민법상 토지 임대차규정을 확장 적용하자는 입법론을 제기하였다. 그리하여 본 연구는 다음과 같은 순서로 진행하였다. 첫째 토지와 건물이 분리된 연혁적인 과정을 살펴보았다. 로마법 이래로 토지와 건물을 일체적으로 보는 유럽의 대륙법계와 달리 우리나라에서는 어떠한 계기로 토지와 건물을 독자적인 부동산으로 취급하게 되었는지를 연혁적인 과정을 들어 설명하였다. 토지와 건물을 별개의 물건으로 보는 관계로 법정지상권이 문제되었고 그 결과 건물과 토지와 관계된 법률관계의 당사자들의 이익을 해하게 되어 입법론적으로 법정지상권의 적용범위를 최대한 축소하자는 방법론을 제시하였다. 둘째 기존의 선행논문에서 언급 하였던 민법 제366조의 법정지상권, 관습법상의 법정지상권과 관련된 대법원 판례와 이론을 제2장 법정지상권의 이론적 고찰에서 서술하였다. 다만 기존의 논문들과의 차이점은 실제 경매상 문제되었거나 현재 문제되고 있는 사건들을 분석하여 난해한 판례이론들에 대입시켜 정리하였고 나아가 보다 용이한 권리분석을 할 수 있는 방법론을 제시하였다. 셋째, 미등기 건물에 대한 법정지상권을 논하기 위한 전제인 미등기건물의 개념, 미등기건물의 발생원인, 미등기건물의 종류, 경매에서 문제되는 제시외 건물, 독자성이 인정되는 미준공건물의 성립요건을 정리하였고 특히 컨테이너구조물이나 비닐하우스, 공사현장의 설치물들을 위한 법정지상권이 인정되는지 여부를 서술하였다. 넷째, 법정지상권의 분석 수단으로의 건물의 신축연도를 항공사진이나 등기부, 폐쇄등기부를 활용하여 판단하는 방법이나 건물의 존재여부를 판단하는 실무적인 방법으로 기존건물의 멸실등기 일자, 착공신고 일자 등을 분석하는 법을 설명하였다. 이상과 같이 본 연구는 대표적인 미공시권리가 될 수 있고 권리분석이 까다로운 법정지상권에 관한 이론적 설명과 더불어 특히 실무상 권리분석이 어려운 미등기 건물, 미준공 건물에 인정되는 법정지상권에 대한 이론과 대법원 판례를 구체적인 경매사례를 들어서 분석정리 하였다. 그리고 법률행위를 통한 법정지상권이 성립하는 경우를 폐지하고 대안으로 민법상 토지임차권의 성립을 인정해야 하는 필요성과 논거를 제시하고 기존의 지상권 규정의 수정된 조문의 내용과 추가해야 할 임차권등기청구권에 대한 조문의 예시를 들어 입법론을 제안하였다.

민법 제366조의 법정지상권

하민수 경북대학교 대학원 2017 국내석사

Article 366 of the Civil Code Legal Superficies* Ha, Min-Su Department of law Graduate School, Kyungpook National University Daegu, Korea (Supervised by Professor Kang, Tae-Seong) (ABSTRACT) Legal superficies refer to the recognized right to use land when it does not go against the public interest to prevent the demolition of a building by law or common law and the intent and interests of the parties involved in the case that the right to the use of land between parties involved is not established by a legal act. Laws that regulate such legal superficies include laws on civil code and provisional registration security, laws on standing trees, and legal superficies by common law. Article 366 of the civil code stipulates that “When the land and ground building which belong to the same owner get owned by different owners due to auction, the land owner is regarded as having established the superficies for the building owner.” The purpose of the present study is to examine the details of improvement plans which claim a review of the many theories and precedents accumulated in regards to the establishment requirements of article 366 of the civil code and the expansion of the public notice function which aims at clarifying the relationship between the legal superficies of article 366 and article 365 of the civil code and which aims at the clarity of legal superficies. The study then aims at finding the more efficient plan. The Korea civil code handles buildings as real estate separate from and independent of the land, and such an attitude is in contrast to the attitude of the German and French civil codes which Korea considerably took over. Along with the Japanese civil code, this can be regarded as a unique legal system at least in terms of the relationship between land and building. Therefore, the study compares German, French, and Japanese laws and examines theories and precedents with different views in regards to the establishment requirements of the Japanese civil code which considerably influenced the Korea legal system. The 2013 Civil Code Revision Committee clarified, with regards to the legal superficies of article 366 of the civil code, the requirement that the owner of the land and ground building must be the same at the time of settling the mortgage in basic cases When the legal superficies are established, and determined a subcommittee draft amendment to be forwarded to the entire committee with content that stipulates the attitude of the precedent that legal superficies are not established when ground buildings are expanded or renovated after a joint mortgage is held for building and land. Subsequently, it also placed a written regulation that legal superficies are established when the owner of the land and ground building become different due to a public sale or an auction for the execution of security rights. Furthermore, it placed an integrated article on legal superficies at 3 of article 289 while deleting article 366. The present study explored various improvement plans including the efficient application of terms for legal superficies related to article 366 of the civil code, the specification of rent calculation by the holder of legal superficies and the land owner, the expansion of the public notice function for clarifying legal superficies, the expansion of the blanket auction claim right, and the clarification of terms related to the newly established 4 of article 289 (legal superficies) of the civil code. First, with regards to the term of legal superficies, room for reconsidering an efficient term which considers both the building owner and the institutional purpose of legal superficies is necessary. Although, as legislative choices, it is possible to delete articles 280 and 281 which concern the term of legal superficies and fully leave it to the agreement of the parties involved or to place a regulation that presumes the term to be 10 or 5 years when such an agreement is absent, article 280 of the draft amendment reduces the shortest term of legal superficies, proposing one-sided compulsory provisions for it just like the existing regulation, and when agreement on a term is absent, the term of legal superficies is set at the shortest legal term, just like the existing regulation, according to article 281, clause 1 of the draft amendment. Second, in order to specify rent calculation by the holder of the legal superficies and the land owner, the standard for determining the rent must be a price corresponding to the profits earned by another person using the land, and the economic value of the land is usually designated as the price of the land, as an objective exchange value, and is the price for the transfer of land ownership. Although the appraised value of property value can be the standard for the transaction price, the loss appraisal occurring due to the restriction of ownership use as a result of the legal superficies must be the standard for appraised value, net profit, and cost. Therefore, the court must determine an adequate and specific reference point by using references like these expected rates of return. Third, it is advisable to clarify the establishment requirements of legal superficies toward a direction of reducing the application range of legal superficies by taking notice of the fact that their ambiguity can bring about an unexpected loss to transaction security, land owners, and third parties. In order to expand the public notice function of legal superficies, it is appropriate that a court decision obligates the execution of legal superficies registration by opening a way for building owners to register them through the application of the right to apply for a registration order of legal superficies. Fourth, when the legal superficies of article 366 of the civil code are not recognized, it is necessary to make improvements toward a blanket auction claim right for both the land and the building, making it impossible to claim an auction for only the land, by interpreting the blanket auction claim right as having a compulsory provisional nature, not a temporary one. The blanket auction claim right must be redefined by relaxing it. In other words, when a building is constructed on mortgaged land or when the usufructuary right holder who received the right from the owner of the mortgaged real estate or a third party acquisitor of ownership rights from the mortgagor constructs a building, according to article 365 of the civil code, the blanket auction claim right is recognized. The blanket auction claim right of article 365 of the civil code grants the opportunity for a blanket auction to not only the mortgagor but also the building owner, and hence it is more reasonable to find a method that allows the mortgagor to exert preferential payment from the building auction price for granting such an opportunity. Fifth, the provisory clause of the draft amendment uses the term ‘mortgage’, which enables an interpretation limited to mortgages, and thus, it is more appropriate to clearly revise this to ‘auction by execution of the security right’ in order to acquire legal stability and clarify newly established terms in 4 of article 289(legal superficies). Keywords : Legal Superficies, Article 366 of the Civil Code Legal Superficies, Article 365 of the Civil Code Blanket Auction Claim Right.

법정지상권에 관한 연구

윤아름 檀國大學校 2006 국내석사

토지와 건물을 별개의 부동산으로 하고 있는 우리 법제에서는 여러 가지 이유로 인해 토지와 건물의 소유자가 각각 달라질 수 있는데 그 중 민법 제366조에 의한 법정지상권은 동일소유자에 속하였던 토지와 건물이 저당권의 실행에 의하여 각각 소유자가 달라지는 경우에 건물소유를 위한 토지이용권을 설정할 수 있는 가능성이 거의 없기에 법률상 당연히 인정되는 제도이다. 이는 ‘지상물은 토지에 속한다’(Superficies solo cedit)라는 로마법의 원리를 계수한 서양의 법리와는 달리 토지와 건물을 독립된 부동산으로 취급하는 우리나라 및 일본에서만 인정되는 특유한 제도이다. 그러나 민법 제366조의 규정만으로는 저당권설정시부터 그 실행에 이르기까지 토지와 건물의 소유자가 달라지는 다양하고 복잡한 법률관계의 상황에 대응한다는 것은 쉬운 일이 아니다. 따라서 종래 학설?판례에 의해 법정지상권의 성립요건 및 내용이 정리되어 왔으며 판례는 구체적 사례를 둘러싼 분쟁해결을 중심으로 그 성립요건을 확립하고 확대하는 경향을 보였다. 학설·판례가 인정하는 민법 제366조에 의한 법정지상권의 성립요건은 저당권설정 당시 건물의 존재, 저당권설정 당시 토지와 건물의 동일인 소유, 저당권의 설정, 경매의 실행으로 인한 토지와 건물에 대한 소유자가 달라진 경우이다. ‘저당권설정 당시 건물의 존재’와 관련하여 저당권설정 당시 이미 존재하는 건물을 철거하고 신건물을 축조한 경우에도 법정지상권을 인정하는지 여부가 가장 주된 문제가 되고 있으며 종래 학설?판례는 건물의 철거로 인하여 축조된 경우에는 구건물을 기준으로 한 법정지상권의 성립을 인정하였지만 구건물의 철거로 인해 건물에 대한 저당권이 소멸하여 저당권자가 당초에 예상한 담보가치가 침해된다는 이유로 그 성립을 부정해야 한다는 학설이 유력해져가고 있고 판례도 2003년에 태도를 변경한 바 있다. 토지와 건물을 각각 독립한 부동산으로 취급하는 우리 법제에서 여러 가지 사정으로 인해 토지와 건물의 소유자가 달라진 경우, 건물의 존속을 위해서는 토지의 이용권이 확보되어야 하며 토지의 이용권이 건물소유자와 토지소유자간에 설정되지 않는다면 건물은 철거될 수밖에 없게 되므로 이는 건물소유자에게 손해일 뿐만 아니라 사회경제적으로도 손실이기 때문에 이러한 손실을 방지하려는 취지로서 민법 제366조와 제365조의 규정을 두고 있으며 민법 제366조와 제365조는 상호보완적인 관계로 신건물을 위한 법정지상권이 성립하지 않는 경우에는 일괄경매권을 고려해봄으로써 건물보호를 존속하는 것이 바람직한 방향이라고 할 수 있다. 일괄경매를 통해 건물의 존속을 보장하는 것이 토지와 건물을 별개로 보는 현행 법제의 미비점을 보다 효율적으로 보완하는 것이라고 본다. 다만 일괄경매만으로 보완하기에는 다소 부족한 면이 있다 할 것이므로 입법론적 방안을 제시해 해결을 모색해 볼 필요가 있으리라고 본다. The Korean law system defines land and building as separate real estate, which means the owners of land and building can be different for many different reasons. Article 366 of Civil Law covers the legal superficies rights, according to which there is little possibility of setting the land use rights for the concerned building if the land and building that once belonged to the same owner get to be possessed by different owners because of the mortgage right. Unlike the Western law following the Roman law principle that 'Superficies solo credit,' the Korean and Japanese laws treat land and building as independent real estate from each other and thus are deemed unique. It's not easy to respond to all the diverse and complex legal relations and situations subject to the owners of land and building from the setting of the mortgage and to the implementation solely depending on the Article 366 of Civil Law. There have been theories and precedents that define the conditions of legal superficies and contents. The precedents have shown the tendency to expand and increase the conditions based on the resolutions of each specific case. The conditions of legal superficies of Article 366 of Civil Law accepted by the theories and precedents include the existence of the building at the time of setting the mortgage right, the same owner of the land and building at the time of setting the mortgage right, and the separation of the land and building by different owners because of the mortgage or auction. As for 'the existence of the building at the time of setting the mortgage,' the major issue is to recognize the legal superficies even when the building for the mortgage is demolished and a new one is constructed. The theories and precedents recognize the legal superficies of the old building in such a case, but there is a growing new theory denying the condition saying that the owner of the old building will have the mortgage right abolished for the building and the mortgagee will have the expected collateral value violated. There was a precedent in 2003 that followed the new perspective and changed the attitude accordingly. Under the Korean law that treats land and building as separate real estate, there can be many different cases where the owners of land and building can be separate persons. In that case, the right to use the land should be guaranteed in order to maintain the building. If there is no such right established between the land owner and the building owner, the building cannot help being demolished, which is a loss both to the owner and for the social and economic concerns. Article 366 and 365 were designed to prevent such a loss, being in mutually complementary relationships. Considering a bulk auction right to preserve the old building in case of no legal superficies for the new building will be a desirable choice. That is a way to compensate for the inadequacy of the current law treating land and building separately more efficiently. And it's necessary to take the legislative perspectives in devising solutions since the bulk auction approach is not enough alone to compensate for all the imperfections.

재건축 건물의 법정지상권에 관한 연구

황인섭 전남대학교 대학원 2010 국내석사

(국문초록) 현행 민법 제366조는 “저당물의 경매로 인하여 토지와 그 지상건물이 다른 소유자에 속한 경우 토지소유자는 건물소유자에 대하여 지상권을 설정한 것으로 본다”라고 규정하고 있는데, 이 경우 건물소유자가 토지소유자에 대하여 가지는 지상권을 법정지상권이라 한다. 이러한 법정지상권을 인정하는 이유는 토지와 건물을 독립한 부동산으로 취급함으로써 발생하는 현행법제의 문제점 즉, 사회․경제적 손실 및 가치권과 이용권의 조화 등을 위한 보완책으로 민법에 명문으로 규정하고 있는 것이다. 그러나 2003. 12. 18. 선고 98다43601 전원합의체 판결을 통하여 단독저당과는 달리 공동저당의 경우 재건축 건물에 대해서는 법정지상권을 부정하고 기존 판례에 대한 예외를 인정하는 판단을 하였다. 물론 이 경우 법정지상권을 부정하는 입장은 토지 및 그 지상건물에 공동저당권이 설정된 경우 저당권자는 토지 및 지상건물 전체의 담보가치를 파악하고 있으므로 경매의 실행 전에 건물이 멸실된 때에는 토지에 관하여 법정지상권의 제약이 없는 나대지로서의 담보가치를 파악하는 것이 당사자의 의사라는 이유로 법정지상권을 부정하는 것도 일리는 있다. 그러나 종래 토지와 건물에 공동저당을 설정한 후 구건물을 철거하고 신건물을 축조한 경우에도 신건물을 위해 구건물을 기준으로 법정지상권의 성립을 긍정하는 것이 민법 제366조가 법정지상권제도를 규정하는 근본적 취지인 저당물의 경매로 인하여 토지와 그 지상건물이 다른 사람의 소유에 속하게 된 경우에 건물이 철거됨으로써 생길 수 있는 사회경제적 손실을 방지하려는 공익상 이유에 있는 것이므로, 공동저당의 경우에도 신축된 건물에 법정지상권을 인정하는 것이 타당하다. 또한 이 제도는 어느 한편의 이익을 보호하려는 데 있는 것이 아니므로 저당권자가 그 설정 당시 가졌던 ‘기대’가 어떤 것이었느냐 하는 주관적 사정에 의해 그 성립여부를 판단해서는 안된다. 그러므로 법적통일성을 위해서도 단독저당 뿐만 아니라 공동저당의 경우에도 법정지상권을 인정하는 것이 논리적이다. 그러나 법정지상권을 인정할 수 없다면 차선책으로 민법 제365조 일괄경매청구권을 강행규정으로 개정하여 법정지상권이 부정될 경우에는 법정지상권의 입법취지에 따라 일괄경매청구권을 인정해야 한다. 입법론적으로는 토지 위에 건물이 존재하는 경우에는 그 축조시기를 불문하고 반드시 일괄경매를 하도록 하고 양자가 전부 동일인에게 경락되는 것만을 허용하도록 입법하는 방안 등도 고려해 볼만하다. 나아가 토지와 건물을 별개의 독립한 부동산으로 인정함으로써 발생하는 문제들을 일시적인 미봉책에 의해서가 아니라 근본적으로 해결하기 위해서는 토지와 건물의 일체적 구성으로의 방향전환을 모색해 볼 수도 있을 것이다. (Abstract) Having followed the Japanese civil code, Korea civil law is different from the western countries'. The statutory surface right is a peculiar civil code of Korea similar to the Japanese, where the land and building are deemed as independent real estates. But by the article 366 of the Korea Civil Law, it is not clear when the legal superficies is established, and not concrete what situations and conditions are necessary. Therefore, the conditions and contents of it have been arranged by existing theories and precedents. They have a tendency to expand the conditions. The existing theories and precedents do not make a difference between independent mortgage and common mortgage. In any given case, as long as a building existed above the land at the time of the mortgage settling, the legal superficies right has been recognized based on the former building standards; even if it has been remodeled, enlarged, rebuilt or newly built due to its abolition or removal. But the Supreme Court of Korea abandoned its long sustained precedents and held that the owner of the reconstructed building was denied the statutory surface right(Popjong-Jeesangkwon in Korean), which means the new owner of the land who purchased it through auction might claim the removal of the property. The topic was so critical that the Supreme Court Judges' opinions were split. There was a minor opinion that the precedents should be sustained on the grounds that we need to keep a balance of the values of the two important of the properties - the financial value of the property vs. the use of the property. The author, mentioning the socio-economical background of the decision, agrees with the Supreme Court of Korea on that the past ruling needed to be changed and the new ruling could be helpful and effective for the globalization and modernization and Korea mortgage(Jeodang-kwon in Korean) law. However, the author is of the opinion that bulk auction(Ilkwal-Kyungmei in Korean) might have been the better option for the Supreme Court of Korea; criticising the decision by comparing the mortgage, statutory surface right and auction law between Korea and Japan. If we use bulk auction right, the relationship between the parties might be much more simple and clear because the building and the land definitely belongs to the same person after the auction. But it is beneficial to him or her as well because to be auctioned is better than to be removed. It is to be noted that one of the characteristics of the Korean property law is that the land and the buildings may belong to different people. It needs to be emphasized that this strange situation is "possible" according to the Korean Civil Code, but at the same time, it is still very "unnatural and exceptional" even in Korea. Taking the purpose of legislation and function into consideration, it is desirable to adjust widely the conditions in bulk auction and to enact a provision; admitting the right of the bulk action as a right of the building-owner who benefits by the bulk auction, furthermore, the right of the bulk auction as a duty of mortgagee. Law works itself pure. Present law gradually transforming itself into its own purer ambition, haltingly, to be sure, with slides as well as gains, never worked finally pure, but better in each generation than the last. It matters how judges decide cases. It might be advised to avoid it. The use of the bulk auction right could be a better solution to avoid it.

부동산경매에서 법정지상권에 관한 법적 고찰

김종익 건국대학교 행정대학원 2016 국내석사

부동산경매는 단순히 저렴한 토지와 주택을 취득하는 차원을 넘어 상당수 국민의 경제활동의 기반이 될 뿐만 아니라 자본주의 사회에서 가장 큰 부동산물건 거래시장이다. 전국에서 매주 거래되는 부동산경매물건을 보면 경매에 대한 전 국민의 관심도를 짐작 할 수 있다. 우리민법 제366조의 법정지상권은 민법이 건물과 토지를 별개의 부동산으로 취급하고 있는 현실에서 발생되는 제도의 산물임을 알 수 있다. 법정지상권의 성립여부와 경매법원 물건현황 명세서에 대한 명확한 표기가 반드시 필요하겠으나 이는 민법 전반의 제도개선과 맞물려 있는 정책적 고려사항이다. 2014. 2. 17. 법무부 민법개정위원회에서 매매 등 법률행위에 의한 관습법상 법정지상권이 법정임대차로 대체하고 경매나 공매 등에 의한 법정지상권은 성문법상 법정지상권의 하나로 민법전에 편입되기로 마무리 되었다. 법률행위로 인한 법정지상권의 사실상 폐지는 관습법상 법정지상권이 당사자의 의사에 부합되지 않아 사적자치의 원칙에 반한다는 비판에서 어느 정도 벗어날 수 있을 것으로 보인다. 법정지상권을 인정하는 이유는 첫째, 온전한 건물이 철거되고 허물어짐으로써 사회·경제적으로 발생되는 손실을 방지하자는 공익적 측면이다. 둘째, 법으로 정하여 지상권을 인정하더라도 이것이 당사자간의 의견과 크게 상이 하지 않는다는 것이다. 본 연구는 부동산경매에서 법정지상권의 이해를 좀 더 통합적으로 살펴볼 필요가 있다는 생각에 법정지상권의 일반개념 정리에 중점을 두었다. 이를 통하여 대법원경매정보 물건비고란에 표시된 ‘법정지상권 여지 있음’의 부동산 경매물건에 입찰하고자 하는 모든 예비입찰자들이 좀 더 예측 가능한 선택을 함으로써 사회·경제적인 손실을 방지할 수 있기를 기대한다.

법정지상권에 관한 연구 : 부동산문제와 관련하여

조영순 강남대학교 일반대학원 2005 국내석사

본 연구는 법정지상권에 관하여 고찰하고 그 문제점을 찾아내어 해결 방안을 제시하고자 하였다. 부동산은 특히 토지의 자연적 특성인 부증성으로 인하여 모든 수요를 전부 충족 할 수 없게 된다. 따라서 타인의 토지를 사용하게 되는데 그 토지위에 건물 등 정착물을 설치하였다면 여러 가지 사정으로 건물 등을 철거해야 되는 위험을 초래한다. 법정지상권은 그 위험으로부터 건물을 보호하기 위하여 법률의 규정에 의하여 당연히 성립하는 제도이다. 이 같은 법정지상권이 갖는 문제가 부동산과 관련하여 어떤 영향을 미치게 되는지 연구하기 위하여 부동산실무경험자 등 여러 경로를 밟아 각종문헌·선행논문·참고논문 등을 수집하였고, 학설과 판례 등은 강남대학교 도서관 · 국회도서관 · 법원도서관 · 중앙도서관 등에서 탐색하여 연구의 기반으로 하였다. 특히 지도교수님의 수십 여 차례에 걸친 지도는 이 논문의 충실정도를 한층 높이었다. 본 연구의 초점은 부동산거래에서 법정지상권과 관련한 부동산문제가 “건물을 보호하기 위함이므로 궁극적인 목적은 토지와 건물의 일체를 이루는데 있다.” 후일 많은 분들이 본 논문의 내용이나 결론에서 문제해결의 방법이라고 생각되는 점을 발견한다면 연구자는 더 바랄게 없겠다. 나아가 법정지상권과 관련한 제 문제가 복잡한 만큼 계속 연구하여 되도록 간단히 해결되는 구체적 방안이 마련되기를 기대한다. 우리나라는 1970년대 이후 급격한 산업화의 물결로 성장하였고, 공업화되면서 지금의 정보화시대에 정착하여 생명과학 등 또 다른 세계로의 진입을 꿈꾸며 행진하고 있다. 세계적으로 ‘UN통일매매법’ ‘UNIDROIT의 상사계약의 원칙’ 등 국제적인 사법 통일의 움직임이 있는 이때, 특히 사법적·공법적 제한을 받고 있는 우리나라의 법정지상권제도는 이미 일부가 개정 되었음에도 불구하고 구체적 법률분쟁에 있어서 자유롭지 못하다. 신중을 기한 개정이 필요하다고 생각된다. 특히 우리국민들이 지닌 토지에 대한 강한 집념과 함께 성장할 수 있도록 많은 분들의 깊은 정책적 배려가 기대된다. 본 논문의 주된 목적은 타인의 토지를 사용함으로써 종종 발생하는 법정지상권에 관한 문제를 고려함에 있다. 특히 건물의 보호를 위한 폭넓은 부동산학적 시각에서 보고자 하였다. 본 연구자는 첫째, 부동산은 인간을 위하여 사용하도록 주신 선물이다. 둘째, 토지에 건물 등 상당하는 정착물을 부착하는 일에 신중을 기한다. 셋째, 부동산이 지나치게 사적임을 강조하지 않도록 정책적 배려가 요구된다는 점에 초점을 두고, 이로써 법정지상권에 관련한 부동산문제를 넓은 의미의 관점으로 함축하여 본 논문을 마무리 하였다. The purpose of this study is to contemplate the legal surface rights, find out the issues to present the resolution plan. real estate cannot satisfy the demand due to the characteristics in locational immobility, a natural characteristics of land. Therefore, in using the lad of someone else, if an improvement is established on the land, such as building, it may have the risk of removing the building on several situations. The legal surface rights is a system established under the provisions of law to protect building from such a risk. As above, for the study of how the issues of legal surface rights influence in relation to real estate, various documents, advance thesis, reference thesis and others are gathered through several routes including the practitioners in real estate works, and searched the theories and case studies in the library of Kang-nam University, Library of the National Assembly. libraries at courts, and central library. In particular, the several tens of instructions from the advising professor has heightened the substantiality of this thesis so much more. The focus on this study is that the issues relating to legal surface rights in real estate transactions is to 'protect the buildings', and it is to make the unity of land and building in one. Later, if may people would discover the point that is thought of as a way of problem resolution from the contents or conclusion of this thesis, this writer would be most happy. Furthermore, the pertinent problems are complicated in relation to the legal surface rights, however, it would be expected to make concrete plan to simply resolve with the continuing studies. After 1970s, Korea has made growth in radical industrialization, and in settling for the informatization era, it is marched to enter into the other world including the bio-science and others. In worldwide fashion, there has been the movement in international judicial unification in ‘UN Uniform Transaction Act’, ‘Principle of Trading Contract under UNIDROIT’ and others, and in particular, the legal surface rights system of Korea with the judicial and public limitation is not so free on the concrete legal disputes. It is believed to require amendment with the serious consideration. In particular, the will and intent on land is expected for profound policy consideration of many people to grow together with the strong. The main purpose of this thesis is to take a look at the broad view on real estate to protect the buildings in relation to the issue on legal surface rights that arises in using the land of others. This researcher emphasizes first, real estate is the present for human to use. Second, it requires careful consideration in attaching improvements on land, such as buildings. Third, there is a policy requirement not to emphasize real estate as not overly private property. Therefore, this thesis is completed by implicating the real estate issues related to the legal surface rights in broad point of view.

法定地上權에 관한 硏究

박광동 건국대학교 대학원 2000 국내석사

Legal Superficies is made to protect national economy and public interest under the Korean legal system which regards land and a house on it as separate real estates in case that either the land or the house on it belongs to a different person after a public auction of the property mortgaged. It is a special system setting not by a private contract but by legal requirement. The patterns of these Legal Superficies are as follows. ① In case that land with a building belongs to the same person and a contract of chonsegwon is made on the building, the special successor in title of the land ownership is deemed to have created legal superficies(civil code art 305 ①). ② Where land and a building on it belong to a different person after a puble auction of the property mortgaged, an owner of the land is deemed to have created superficies for an owner of the building (civil code art 366). ③ In case that land with a building belongs to the same person, and a different person obtains the ownership of the land or registration on provisional registration on the same land with the building according to the law for setting mortgage by provisional registration, legal superficies on the land is deemed to be set for the purpose of owning the building. (the law for setting mortgage by provisional registration, article 10). ④ Where land and trees on it belong to a different person after a public auction the trees on it or by other reasons, an owner of the land is deemed to have created superficies for an owner of the trees (the law about the trees on the land, article 6). ⑤ In case that either the land or the building on it belongs to a different person after selling of the land or the building or by other reasons, while land with a building belongs to the same person, it is deemed to be Legal Superficies under customary law. However, these Legal Superficies cause the problem of the protection of the owner of the land. That is the problem of harmony of private interest and public interest. Therefore, this system which excessively restricts the ownership of the land should be recognized as the complementary system and must not expand the application of it. It is necessary to apply only in case of having clear requirements in view of harmony of public interest and private interest. To study this, I confine the scope of this study to the theoretical view and case study using literature approach considering many limitations in other approaches. In Chapter 2, I examine the history of Legal Superficies in terms of legal history. The base of allowing Legal Superficies put the repect for the thought of persons concerned first within public interest. In Chapter 3, I examine legal superficies after a public auction of the property mortgaged. ① Concerning legal charateristics of legal superficies under art 366 of civil code, if an owner of the land and an owner of the building reach an agreement about using the land after the public auction of the land or the building, it is deemed for him to abandon his legal superficies on the land. ② The existing period of the building must be continued from the point of setting mortgage to the time to tear down the building on it. ③ In case that the building is built up again on it, legal superficies is recognized on the new building. In Chapter 4, I review some problems, the theory of making law, and the theory of Legal Superficies under customary law. The problems are as follows. First, it is easy to sacrifice an owner of the land because of too broad application of this law. Second, it is not perfect to make public notification about the real estate. Third, it is possible to give damage to the third person. Fourth, it makes legal relationship complicated. In the theory of its interpretation, the need of Legal Superficies under customary law should be recognized, but the scope must be restricted strictly. And the opinion of persons concerned should be respected at first. In case of having Legal Superficies depending on the opinion of persons concerned, it is right not to allow Legal Superficies under customary law. (for example, buying and selling, donation) I review Legal Superficies in view of the theory of making law. ① Even though land and a building on it are separate estate, it is necessary to transfer it as one property. Finally, it is necessary to make law in order that the land and the building on it may be considered as one estate. ② In case that the owner of the land builds up a building on it, it is necessary to make law in order that the owner of the land may set self-Superficies for himself for the good use of the land. In summary, the point is that the theory of making law and the theory of Legal Superficies approach to the direction of the harmony of public interest and private interest. In Chapter 5, I review the grounds of the recognition of Legal Superficies for chonsegwon protection, Legal Superficies about the trees on the land, and Legal Superficies after setting a mortgage by provisional registration. In Legal Superficies for chonsegwon protection, the ground of the recognition should be in the protection of the owner of chonsegwon rather than public interest. On the contrary, in Legal Superficies after setting a mortgage by provisional registration, it should be in the socioeconomic protection.

법정지상권이 경매에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구 : 판례와 경매사례 중심으로

김종남 대구대학교 행정대학원 2008 국내석사

자본주의 사회에서 부동산은 단순히 의식주 해결의 차원을 뛰어넘어 경제활동의 기반이 될 뿐만 아니라 풍요로운 삶을 영위하는 척도가 되어가고 있다. 2001년 1월 26일 제6627호로 종전 민사소송법에서 분리된 민사집행법이 제정되면서 구 민사소송법하의 경매절차보다 채권자와 매수인의 권리를 보호하고 경매절차 지연의 방지와 간소화, 권리구제의 신속성 등을 목적으로 여러 제도적 장치가 도입 되어 과거 부정적인 면을 벗고 부동산 거래의 새로운 유통 경로로 확대되고 있는 실정이다. 부동산 경매에 있어서 가장 어려운 점은 입찰 물건에 법적하자가 있는 지의 여부 이며 특히 부동산 등기부상 표시되지 않는 미공시 권리인 법정지상권, 분묘기지권 유치권등에 관한 권리분석의 실패는 소유권을 행사하는 데 큰 문제가 될 수 있다. 법정지상권은 우리 법제가 서구의 법제와 달리 건물을 토지와 별개의 부동산으로 인정하면서 건물과 그 건물을 위한 토지용익권과의 결합을 법률상 강제하지 아니하고 방치하여 나온 제도이다. 법정지상권이 성립할 가능성이 있는 경매부동산을 응찰 시는 매각물건 명세서와 각종 공부를 통해 성립요건을 철저히 파악하여야 할것이다. 현재는 건축중인 건물의 경우 독립된 건물의 요건의 불명확성과 법정지상권의 인정범위를 어디까지 할 것인가에 대한 논란이 많은 실정이다. 또한 구건물을 기준으로 할 경우 신 건물과의 존속기간과 이용범위의 차이등은 문제의 소지을 여전히 안고 있다고 할 수 있으며 때로는 신건물의 존립자체를 부정해야 하는 결과가 될 수도 있다. 법원에서 법정지상권의 성립여부에 대하여 좀 더 신중하게 정확히 조사 하여 공익적 요청과 사적 이익의 조화라는 점에서 당사자는 그 사실을 신고하도록 하고, 경매현황 조사서에 성립여부를 명확히 표시하는 제도적인 개선이 이루어져야 할 것이다. 또한 저당권설정 당시에 설정자가 자기 지상권이나 자기 임차권등 본인 소유의 부동산에 대한 이용권을 설정 할 수 있도록 하거나, 토지위에 건물이 존재할 경우에는 일괄경매의 범위를 넓혀주는 해결책을 찾아야 할 것이다. 본 연구에서는 미공시 권리 중 하나인 법정지상권에 관한 일반적인 이론을 체계적으로 설명하였고 관련 판례와 사례를 분석하여 경매에 입찰시 법정지상권에 대한 막연한 불안감을 조금이나마 해소하고자 노력하였다. In the capitalistic society, real property is a measure of affluent life as a basis of economic activity, not to mention solution of food, clothing, and shelter. On the 26th January, 2001, the Civil executive law of No. 6627 separated from the existing Civil Proceeding Act was enacted. And It answers the purpose of improvement in the old law, namely, simplification and rapidity of procedures for rights of creditors and purchasers. Accordingly, the law plays important part of a new chanel of distribution for transactions of real property by getting out of negative. The very core of the auction depends on a legal flaw of the object. Especially, analytic failure on the unpublished rights such as legal right of land, right to use tomb, and lien becomes an issue of use of proprietary rights. Korean legislation is not in accordance with Western one because legal right of land happened under the inconsistency of the rights to use building and land. In other words, building is treated separately from that land in Korea. For this reason, people concerned with auction of land have to grasp of the essence of various conditions on something to sell through a detailed statement of contents and all sorts of documents. The fact is that there are sharp differences of opinion on an extent of legal right of land and requisite of independent building in the case of building being built. In addition, there are many problems awaiting solution on an the limits of use and the period of continued existence between an old building and a new one. Sometimes, it brings about negation of a new one. The court should investigate a requisite of legal right with caution and fomulate a system of auction by clearing up requisites for auction of real property. In case of harmony between a public demand and a private profit, the court has to make a person concerned report the case of object to the authorities concerned. And it must make a mortgagor establish the right to use land and a right of lease. If building on land is in existence, it ought to prepare a solution for auction in bulk by expanding its permissible range. The purpose of this study is to systematically explain general theory on legal right of land as one of unpublished rights and to get rid of a troubled mind of a tenderer by analyzing leading cases and precedents.

法定地上權의 問題點에 관한 硏究

강창원 建國大學校 不動産大學院 2003 국내석사

There is the one case of effectiveness of the statutory superficies, for example, the superficies is to be effective when the lands, buildings or standing trees of the same owner will be changed ownership later on respectively by concerned regulation. Another case is that even if we don't have requirement for the statutory superficies regulated civil law, the statutory superficies of common law can be effective. And there is the right of the tomb superficies in custom, which is quite similar to estate. I've analyzed each and every point of problems from precedents and explained theories and now can give you the improvements. Our nation's the statutory superficies regulate the building or standing trees are treated as immovable property that does not include lands, and this is the problem. I would like to discuss about the statutory superficies not regulated by civil law such as the statutory superficies of mortgage, the statutory superficies of the right of lease, the statutory superficies of the law of standing trees. Firstly, the regulations of law that can confirm the condition of configuration and the method of public announcements are actually very insufficient, when looking up the statutory superficies of the right of mortgage. There is the case that court didn't accept the statutory superficies just because not only it could decrease the price of the Hand but also do damage to those who mortgaged that land, after mortgaging land and then constructing buildings controlled by the statutory superficies. I do not believe this is not the right one because the basic intention of the statutory superficies in civil law is to protect social-economical loss from removing buildings. In order to settle this problem, the need of making law for protection buildings is urgent, considering that buildings themselves can be the economical resource of our nation. Secondly, the matter I would like to discuss is the statutory superficies of the right of lease. It's been made recently in the current civil law. Considering that it can allow those who have the right of lease to buy and sell potential land, it's importance is good to be stressed, but due to the fact that it is made UP of civil law chapter 305, like the right of mortgage, I still think that it is not enough to settle law problem. Therefore, sophisticated theories by many professors, and precedents by Supreme Court are urgently needed. Thirdly, the matter I would like to discuss is the statutory superficies of standing trees law. There are only thirty kinds of standing trees on the ground that can be protected by law. Moreover, only seven kinds of wild trees out of the thirty are entitled to get protection. Therefore, it is desirable that government must extend the protection of law to save owners with trees that are away from the protection by law. Thestatutory superficies of common law exists only in Korea, which is not defined in scientific way. Some precedents say that the statutory superficies is admitted by the special attribute in which buildings always go with lands, and the economical need for people to estimate buildings. However, government must pay close attention, for instance allowing registration as long as precedents admit the statutory superficies of common law, not to do harm to bona-fide third party, due to insufficient public notice. Lastly, the right of the tomb superficies in custom is sort of a real right to possess a grave on land owned by others. The right of the tomb superficies in custom is usually considered as traditionally good and beautiful custom because graves symbolize worshiping ancestors. However, many people want more careful legal review in case of taking a grave without permission of owner of the land, and legal argument because of change of owner of land, and the matter brought up in terms of cultivation of land and the protection of environment. Consequently, some problems with the statutory superficies are inevitable task so long as civil law admits the definition of the statutory superficies as it is. Old precedents were inclined to limit the statutory superficies, but recent precedents acknowledge fortification of land utilization, and adjustment of the statutory superficies for settlement of defects. Somehow, I would say more clear and detailed legal states must be written.

관습법상 법정지상권에 관한 연구

안채현 전북대학교 법무대학원 2010 국내석사

This paper aims to suggest a new direction and review problem on form and effect of the Legal Superficies in Customary Law and investigate the legislation which is currently discussed and present a improvement program. Our civil law has two kind of superficies. The one is superficies by an agreement ; the other is superficies by customary law. Our civil law defines the land as real estate and superficies by customary law. Our civil law defines the land as real estate and building as independent and separate real estate. It is different from the European legislature in that the latter recognizes the land and buildings as real estate. Buildings should be involved in the land use in nature. They should have an inevitable relation with the right to use the land to assure the value as independent real estate. Our civil law defines a right of using of real estate as the superficies by customary law that is caused by the system of dualistic-register book on real estate that divides land and buildings different from that of united-register book on that of other countries originate from real estate system of Rome. It prevent removal of buildings that owners have no right of using of real estate by helping owners of buildings to use the land legally. The intent of law is that this system preserve social and economic effective value. It has several aspects of goodness. However, this system is recognized as customary law by a judical precedents not legislation and the superficies by customary law has a poor theoretical ambiguity. Unclear factors of establishment and imperfect public system, which cause an obstruction in safe transection. Recent critical debates about the superficies by customary law have tended to center around the question of the conviction of customary law. Therefore this paper address issues the acceptance or rejection of customary law and looking for alternatives. We will study Japanese civil law legislative process on how to treat land and building legally. In this study, preface presents a problem followed by meaning of the legal superficies by customary law, factors of establishment, contents, transfer and problems. Some opinion insisted that we must put in effort to make land and building into one entity for legalization. But it run up expenses of amendment and can cause confusion to legal stability. Another insisted that it resolve to minimize a period time of superficies by customary law. But the superficies by customary law has a poor theoretical ambiguity and unclear factors of establishment. In 2004, through civil law amendment, creating a revised civil law 279-2, an attempt was made to legalize the superficies by customary law through judicial precedents. This attempt is right and reasonable. Finally I agree that amendment 279-2 becomes a law.