절차법적 측면에서의 중간생략등기의 검토

최명구 한국토지법학회 2017 土地法學 Vol.33 No.1

According to article 186 of civil act, a real right by a juristic act over an immovable takes effect upon its registration. Some special acts(e.g. act on special measures for the registration on real estate) also should inhibit the transfer of real right without registration. Nevertheless, the registration of intermediate omission in which an acquisitor intermediate can’t acquire the ownership, exists on real state transaction in our society. The registration of intermediate omission has legal force if the agreement of concerned legal three-part on this registration exists or this registration conforms the entity relationship. The registration of intermediate omission divided in the preservative registration with omission in the middle, the registration of intermediate omission in heritance, the registration of intermediate omission in acquisitive prescription, the title registration under a third party’s name with omission in the middle and the registration of intermediate omission in cause of sale. On the preservative registration with omission in the middle, a transferee has the ownership in public on the substantive law. Therefore, this registration doesn’t have problems on the procedural law. On the registration of intermediate omission in heritance, a transferer is a inheritor on the substantial law, but a inheritee is a transferer on the procedural law. Therefore, a transferee has a right to request title transfer registration to a inheritor and has the right of provisional registration to preserve the right to request title transfer registration. On the registration of intermediate omission in acquisitive prescription, a transferee can’t exercise the right to request title transfer registration to owner on registration of real estate because a transferee dosen’t have the right to request title transfer registration to a seller(a owner on the acquisitive prescription) in base on the transfer of an obligation. On the title registration under a third party’s name with omission in the middle, a title truster as a buyer has a right to request title transfer registration to a seller on the sale and also has the right of provisional registration to preserve the right to request title transfer registration. Then on the registration of intermediate omission in cause of sale, the final transferee has the a right to request title transfer registration and a right of provisional registration to preserve above right only if a final transferee has a right to request title transfer registration to a first transferer. 민법 제186조에 따르면, 법률행위로 인한 부동산물권변동은 등기를 하여야 한다. 또한 등기 없는 부동산물권변동을 방지하기 위하여 부동산물권변동의 공시를 위하여 부동산등기 특별조치법 등 특별법을 시행하여 왔다. 그럼에도 불구하고 절차법상 부동산물권변동의 공시를 중간에 생략하는 “중간생략등기”가 행해지고 있다. 판례는 이러한 중간생략등기에 대하여 실체관계에 부합하거나, 3자의 합의가 있는 경우에 유효하다고 하고 있다. 이는 실체법적 측면에서 중간생략등기의 효력을 언급한 것이다. 그렇다면 절차법적 측면에서 중간생략등기의 당사자의 법률관계, 권리의 모습과 행사의 방법은 어떻게 되는 것인가를 검토해 볼 필요가 있다. 따라서 중간생략등기의 유형별 즉, 중간생략의 보존등기, 상속의 중간생략등기, 시효취득의 중간생략등기, 중간생략등기형 명의신탁 및 매매를 원인으로 하는 중간생략등기에 있어서, 당사자 사이의 법률관계, 권리의 모습과 행사방법은 각각 다르게 나타난다. 즉, 중간생략의 보존등기에서는 양도인의 소유권보존등기가 생략되고, 양수인이 실체법적 최초의 소유자로서 적법한 절차에 따라 소유권보존등기를 한다. 따라서 양수인의 중간생략의 보존등기는 실체법상 소유권을 공시한 것으로 절차법상 법적 문제가 발생하지 않는다. 상속의 중간생략등기에서는 양도인인 실체법상 상속인이 소유권자이지만, 절차법상 소유권자는 피상속인으로서 양수인은 상속인에게 소유권이전등기청구권을 갖고, 이를 보존하기 위한 가등기권도 행사할 수 있을 것이다. 시효취득의 중간생략등기에서는 양수인은 취득시효완성자인 매도인에 대하여 채권양도를 원인으로 하는 소유권이전등기청구권을 행사할 수 없기 때문에, 양수인은 등기부상 소유권자에 대하여 소유권이전등기청구권을 행사할 수 없을 것이다. 중간생략등기형 명의신탁에서는 명의신탁자는 매수인으로서 매도인에 대한 매매를 원인으로 하는 소유권이전등기청구권을 갖고, 이를 보존하기 위한 가등기권을 갖을 것이다. 끝으로 매매를 원인으로 하는 중간생략등기에서는 최종양수인이 최초양도인에 대하여 소유권이전등기청구권을 갖는 경우에 한하여, 소유권이전등기청구권을 갖고, 이를 보전하기 위한 가등기권을 행사할 수 있을 것이다.

眞正名義回復을 위한 所有權移轉登記請求

崔彰烈(Chang-Ryeol Choi) 한국비교사법학회 2006 비교사법 Vol.13 No.1

  Once an invalid registration inconsistent with actual condition is made, then making the invalid registration valid by correcting it is by the means of cancellation of registration of that invalid one. But someone argues that demanding not the type of cancellation of registration, but transfer registration for recovery of authentic name based on the ownership. However, such a registration is unable to indicate the change process of the registration, so it may infringe on the interests of those having new interest from the reason invalid registration.<BR>  In regard with this, Japanese precedent accepted the registration demand of ownership transfer for recovery of authentic name from long before, but its main case was for recovering the registration of the property nominally trusted. Our country admitted the validity of nominal trust, so the supreme court has taken on a position to deny it due to little need of accepting it. But on entering 1990, the registration demand of ownership transfer for recovery of authentic name was admitted in that case that right exercising is restricted by vested power due to losing at the lawsuit demanding registration cancellation. Furthermore, for the reason that the vested power of a decision only affects the text, but the cause of the decision, so the registration demand of ownership transfer for recovery of authentic name by the losing party at registration demand of ownership transfer based on sale got to be accepted, which came up with the fear of breakdown of the vested power system. Thus, the supreme court precedent in 2001, overthrew the decision of 1990 by ruling that the registration cancellation demand for reason invalidation and the registration demand of ownership transfer for recovery of authentic name have substantially same objects of the lawsuit, which is contradictory to vested power.<BR>  Hereby this article first explored arguments as to whether the registration demand of ownership transfer for recovery of authentic name is allowed or not in Japan, and then whether the registration demand of ownership transfer for recovery of authentic name would be allowed in our country, if so, in what extent it is permitted.<BR>  As a results, following conclusion is reached. First, Japan has adopted intentionalism in the change of a authentic right, and not accepted the validity of nominal trust, so needs to accept the registration demand of ownership transfer for recovery of authentic name, whereas our country has adopted formalism in the change of a authentic right, and accepted the validity of nominal trust hitherto, so does not largely need to use the above method. Second, the ground to accept the validity of nominal trust should be thought to lie in authentic vested impediment and abatement demand, and it can be affirmed in convenient case of coinciding the registration name and substantial relation, but should be limited to the case not infringing on a third"s party"s interest. Third, in case of contradiction to vested power, the registration demand of ownership transfer for recovery of authentic name should be denied. Since the registration cancellation demand for reason invalidation and the registration demand of ownership transfer for recovery of authentic name have different objects of a lawsuit, but they are in an opposite relation to the upheld legal relation at the previous lawsuit.

상장법인 감사인 등록요건과감사품질에 관한 인식조사

황인태,강선민,이미주 한국공인회계사회 2020 회계·세무와 감사 연구 Vol.62 No.3

This study aims to collect the opinions of the stakeholders concerned with the impact of auditor registration requirements of listed firms on audit quality through a survey and seek effective measures for improvements of the auditor registration requirements. As a result of the survey with a total of 466 respondents, there was a significant difference between auditors and non-auditors, and there were differences in opinions according to the size of auditors concerning most auditor registration requirements. In a considerable number of requirements, the validity of regulation recognized by the non-auditor group was higher than that of the auditor group. Especially, concerning criteria for the number of CPAs (more than 40 persons), integrated business management system construction, audit personnel’s performance assessment criteria, and the remuneration criteria for quality management personnel, auditors’ resistance was great. As a result of verification of the difference in recognition of the registration requirements by the size of auditors, compared to Big4, the validity cognized by other accounting firms is significantly low for eight requirements. From this, we infer that small and medium-sized accounting firms have more difficulty in auditor registration. For some registration requirements, Big4’s responses were higher than non-auditors’ responses. This result might because Big4 have already met these requirements or may easily meet them. If it is easy for Big4 to achieve the registration requirements, but it is difficult for small and medium-sized accounting firms, the auditor registration regulation may distort the audit market structure and market efficiency. Non-auditor respondents valued the improvement of the governance of accounting firms and the compensation system for auditors more than auditors did. This result suggests that auditors should recognize social demands for the change of the auditors’ organization for the improvement of audit quality. To narrow the difference of opinions among the stakeholders concerned the registration requirements, to increase adaptation to the regulation, and meeting social demands for audit quality, it is necessary to consider the difference in the recognition between auditors and non-auditors and opinion of each auditor group. This study has a contribution that it proposed the difference in the cognition of relative validity among various stakeholders concerned with auditor registration requirements related to audit quality through statistical verification. Recently, several listed firms have asked for auditor reassignment, the supervisory authority’s registered auditor addition and auditor registration method changed. It means that an understanding among companies, auditors, and supervisory authorities is required for the effective operation of the auditor registration regulation. 본 연구는 설문조사를 통하여 상장기업 감사인 등록요건이 감사품질에 미치는 영향에 대한 이해관계자들의 의견을 수렴하고, 이를 토대로 실효성 있는 감사인 등록제 개선 방안을 모색하는 데 목적이 있다. 총 466명이 응답한 설문조사 결과, 대부분의 감사인 등록요건에 대하여 감사인과 비감사인 간 유의한 차이가 있고 감사인 규모에 따라서도 견해가 다른 것으로 나타났다. 상당수 항목에서 비감사인 그룹이 인지하는 정책 타당도가 감사인보다 높았다. 특히 공인회계사 인원 기준(40명 이상), 경영통합관리체계 구축, 감사업무 수행인력 성과평가 기준, 품질관리업무 인력의 보수 기준에 대해 감사인의 저항이 큰 것으로 조사되었다. 감사인 규모별로 등록요건에 대한 인식의 차이를 검증한 결과, 8개 항목은 Big4에 비해 여타 회계법인이 응답한 타당도가 유의하게 낮아 중견 및 중소회계법인이 상대적으로 감사인 등록에 어려움이 있음을 알 수 있었다. 일부 등록요건에 대해서는 Big4의 호응이 비감사인보다 높았는데, 이들 요건은 Big4가 이미 충족하고 있거나 쉽게 충족할 수 있는 것이기 때문일 수 있다. 등록요건을 Big4는 쉽게 달성할 수 있으나 중소회계법인은 준수하기 어렵다면, 감사인 등록제로 감사시장 구조가 왜곡되고 시장 효율성이 저하될 수 있다. 비감사인 응답자는 회계법인의 지배구조 및 감사인력의 보상체계 개선에 감사인보다 더 큰 가치를 부여하고 있었다. 이러한 결과는 감사품질 개선을 위한 감사인 조직의 변화에 대한 사회적 요구를 감사인이 인지할 필요가 있음을 시사한다. 감사품질에 대한 사회적 요구에 부응하면서 등록요건에 대한 이해관계자의 이견을 좁히고 제도순응을 높이기 위해서는 감사인과 비감사인 간 인식의 차이 및 감사인 그룹별 견해를 고려할 필요가 있다. 본 연구는 감사품질과 연관된 감사인 등록요건에 대한 여러 이해관계자들의 상대적 타당성의 인식 차이를 통계적 검증을 통하여 제시함으로써 증거기반의 감사인 등록 정책 개선방안 도출에 기여한다. 최근 다수 상장기업들의 감사인 재지정 요구는 감사인 등록제도의 운영과 정착을 위해 이해관계자간 상호 이해가 필요하다는 것을 의미한다.

우리나라 가등기제도의 문제점과 개선방안

홍승옥 제주대학교 법과정책연구원 2012 法과 政策 Vol.18 No.1

Korean provisional registration system was introduced by Japanese system introduced by German system. Therefore, there were lots of confusion for precedents and theories and irregularities/securities, so provisional registration security act was regulated for regulating them. Korean provisional registration system causes lots of problems for systematic interpretation and rational operation because of the defect of legistratively. For the regulation of current laws related to the effects of provisional registration, there is only the Article 91 of the Real Property Registration Act. And, although there is no actual effect for the provisional registration, a debtor of provisional registration can sell real estate completed by provisional registration. But, if a person who has right for provisional registration makes a deadline registration for provisional registration, the registration of the third acquisitor is disposed, but the effects have a contradiction the effects are not retroactive. During the main registration by provisional registration, the method to erase the registration of the third acquisitor based on the Article 92 of the Real Property Registration Act is biased to protect only a person who has the right of provisional registration. And, the disposal of a person who must conduct provisional registration is limited and it's insufficient that rights of the third acquisitor can be protected. It's necessary to make effects for protecting claim on provisional registration and introduce the registration of the second clause of Article 883 of Germany civil law (effects of claim protection and material effects) if making the interpretation whose logic is consistent. And, if main registration is registered after the register of the third acquisitor is completed before the main registration by provisional registration, it must be registered to the third acquisitor with the regulation for not only the second clause of the Article 883 of Germany civil law but also the first clause of the Article 888 of Germany civil law and the 19th clause of German Real Property Registration Act, not disposal of the third acquisitor's registration. For the method to write register, it must be same as material change non-retroactivity theory taken by Korean common view and precedent during the main registration by provisional registration. Also, while revising the regulation related to provisional registration, it will be proper to abolish the provisional registration security law. If improving provisional registration with the above methods, provisional registration will be used as the provisional registration whose purposes are original. So, the rights of a person who has rights of provisional registration can be protected and furthermore, it will actualize balance and equity of interests protection of not only a person who has duty of provisional registration but also the third acquisitor. 우리나라의 가등기제도는 독일 제도의 일부를 도입한 일본의 제도를 그대로 도입하였다. 그리하여 판례와 학설상 많은 혼란을 거듭하였고, 변칙담보가 성행하여 이를 규제하기 위하여 가등기담보법이 제정되기에 이르렀다. 우리나라의 가등기제도는 입법상의 불비로 체계적인 해석이나 합리적인 운영에 많은 문제점이 야기되고 있다. 가등기의 효력과 관련한 현행법의 규정은 부동산등기법 제91조가 유일하고, 가등기 자체에 아무런 실체법적 효력이 없다고 하면서도 가등기의무자는 가등기가 경료된 부동산을 처분할 수 있고, 가등기권자가 가등기에 기한 본등기를 하면 제3취득자의 등기는 말소되나 그 효력에 있어서는 소급하지 아니하는 모순이 생긴다. 가등기에 기한 본등기 시 부동산등기법 제92조에 의하여 제3취득자의 등기를 직권말소 하는 등의 방법은 가등기권리자만을 보호하는데 치중한 것으로 가등기의무자의 처분권을 제한하고 제3취득자의 권리보호에 미흡하다. 가등기에 청구권보전의 실효를 거둘 수 있도록 하고, 논리가 일관되는 해석을 가능하게 하려면 독일 민법 제883조 제2항(청구권 보전의 효력과 물권적 효력)에 상당하는 규정을 도입할 필요가 있다. 그리고 가등기에 기한 본등기 이전에 제3취득자의 등기가 경료된 후 등기소에 본등기를 신청하는 경우, 제3취득자의 등기를 직권말소 할 것이 아니라, 독일 민법 제883조 제2항 이외에 동법 제888조 제1항 및 독일 부동산등기법 제19조에 상당하는 규정을 두어서 제3취득자에게 동의를 청구할 수 있게 하여야 할 것이다. 등기부 기재방식에 있어서도 가등기에 기한 본등기 시 우리나라의 통설, 판례가 취하는 물권변동불소급설과 일치시켜야 할 것이다. 또한, 가등기제도와 관련한 법 규정을 개정하면서 가등기담보법을 폐지함이 바람직할 것이다. 위와 같은 방법으로 가등기제도를 개선한다면, 가등기제도는 본래 목적의 가등기제도로 이용되어 가등기권리자의 이익을 보호하고 더 나아가 가등기의무자 뿐만 아니라 제3취득자의 이익보호의 균형과 공평을 실현할 수 있게 될 것이다.

일반가등기의 효력

최명구 한국토지법학회 2017 土地法學 Vol.33 No.2

According to article 88 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Provisional registration shall be made if a right of claim for the creation, transfer, change or extinguishment of a right corresponding to any of the subparagraphs of Article 3(Ownership, Superficies, Easement, Rights to lease on a deposit basis, Mortgage, Pledge of rights, Security rights over claims, Leasehold interest) is to be preserved. The same shall also apply where such right of claim is effective when the time comes, is under condition precedent, or is to be determined in the future. This provisional registration is divided in general provisional registration and provisional registration security, so the divided reason is base on the substantial relation. And according to article 1 of Provisional Registration Security Act, “the purpose of this Act is to provide, with respect to the return of any borrowed object, the effect of a security contract and provisional registration or ownership transfer registration made for the purpose of such security.......”. On this paper, cases and theories concern effects of general provisional registration is explained. The provisional registration is regulated on BGB and so matters of those on GBO but above articles can be found on only Registration of Real Estate Act in Korea and in Japan. Effects of provisional registration need to be commented after and before of registration because of contents and effects of right on registration. First, effects of warning, itself and right's presumption is as effect of before of registration, and then itself effect is divided in substantial effect, preservative effect of claim's right, opposing power, effect against the third and satisfied effect. Through preform of provisional registration exist warning effect but don't exist substantial effect, opposing power, effect against the third(cases and theories). And so the satisfied effect in which is a kind of preservative effect of claim's right is recognized on cases and theories. Second, there are effects of preservative of registration's order, taking effect of right as effect of after of registration. Effects of preservative of registration's order is base on the article 91 of Registration Real Estate Act and also can be recognized through case and many theories. Taking effect of right through registration has no problem concern accepting as a kind of effects because of taking right after performed registration by provisional registration. 부동산등기법 제88조에 따르면, 가등기는 부동산등기법 제3조(소유권, 지상권, 지역권, 전세권, 저당권, 권리질권, 채권담보권, 임차권) 각호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 권리의 설정, 이전, 변경 또는 소멸의 청구권을 보전하려는 때와 그 청구권이 시기부 또는 정지조건부일 경우나 그 밖에 장래에 확정될 것인 경우에 행해진다. 이러한 가등기는 담보가등기와 일반가등기로 구분되는 데, 그 구분은 등기기록의 표시가 아닌 실체적 관계에 근거한다. 그리고 담보가등기는 가등기담보 등에 관한 법률 제1조에 따르면, 소유권이전등기의 효력을 정함을 목적으로 하는 가등기도 담보물권의 효력으로 규정하고 있다. 본 논문에서는 일반가등기의 효력에 대하여 지금까지의 관련 판례와 이론을 중심으로 살펴보고자 한다. 독일은 가등기의 근거를 실체법인 민법에 규정하고, 절차적 사항을 부동산등기법에 규정하고 있는 반면, 일본과 우리나라는 오로지 절차법인 부동산등기법에 규정하고 있다. 따라서 이러한 근거규정의 차이 및 내용에 있어서 우리나라 가등기의 효력을 검토를 위해 최소한 관련규정의 비교법적 언급이 필요할 것이다. 그리고 일반가등기의 효력은 본등기전과 후로 나누어 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 왜냐하면 가등기권자의 가등기상과 본등기상 권리의 내용과 효력이 다르기 때문이다. 첫째, 본등기 이전의 효력으로 경고적 효력, 가등기 자체의 효력과 권리의 추정력으로 구분하여 살펴보고, 가등기 자체의 효력에는 그 효력의 부정, 청구권보전의 효력, 대항력 취득의 효력, 제3자의 효력과 만족적 효력으로 나누어 살펴본다. 가등기는 제3자의 경고적 효력이 있지만 권리변동이 발생하지 않기 때문에 실체법상 효력, 권리의 추정력 및 대항력은 인정되지 않는다고 해석된다(판례, 통설). 그리고 청구권보전의 효력은 판례와 다수의 견해가 인정하고 있고, 만족적 효력은 청구권보전의 효력의 내용의 한 모습으로 볼 수 있을 것이다. 둘째, 본등기 이후의 효력으로 본등기순위보전의 효력, 권리취득의 효력으로 구분하여 살펴본다. 본등기순위보전의 효력은 부동산등기법 제91조(가등기에 의한 본등기 순위)의 규정에 근거하여 판례와 통설이 인정하고 있으며, 권리취득효력은 가등기상 권리를 본등기로 취득할 수밖에 없음으로 인정하는데 이의가 없을 것이다.

일반가등기와 부동산물권변동과의 관계

최명구 민사법의 이론과 실무학회 2022 民事法理論과 實務 Vol.25 No.3

The provisional registration is largely divided into collateral registration and general provisional registration. It is mainly general provisional registration that is a problem with changes in real estate rights in provisional registered real estate. This is because the registration of collateral is regarded as the nature of the real right of collateral under the Act on Provisional Registration Security, etc. The characteristics of general provisional registration are largely divided before and after the main registration, and mainly in the relationship between general provisional registration and changes in real estate rights. There are no clear legislative provisions regarding the effect of preserving the claim of provisional registration. But in the interpretation of regulation, the provisional registration under Article 88 of the Real Estate Registration Act can be made when the establishment of rights, etc. prescribed in Article 3 of the Real Estate Registration Act is to be preserved. According to Article 883(2) of the German Civil Code, it is possible to claim relative invalidity for the transfer of ownership that has been provisionally registered. In other cases where there is a change in real rights, such as interim disposition after provisional registration, due to the effect of preserving the order of provisional registration, it can be seen that the effect is recognized by establishing cancellation regulations in the real estate registration rules. In the event of ownership transfer by double sale, the registration of ownership transfer after the main registration by provisional registration is revoked. On the other hand, as preserving the right to claim for the provisionally registered right, the right to claim has a bond character. However, the claim is not just a bond characteristic, but because it can claim relative invalidity and also has a counter power to interested parties, it can be seen as a bond with a real right character. 가등기는 크게 담보가등기와 일반가등기로 구분한다. 가등기된 부동산의 부동산물권변동에서 문제가 되는 것은 주로 일반가등기이다. 왜냐하면 담보가등기는 가등기 담보 등에 관한 법률에 의하여 담보물권의 성격으로 보기 때문이다. 일반가등기의 성격은 크게 본등기 전과 후로 구분하며, 일반가등기와 부동산물권변동과의 관계에서 주로 살펴볼 부분은 본등기 이전에서 청구권보전의 효력과 본등기 이후에서 순위보전의 효력이다. 가등기의 청구권보전의 효력에 관하여 명확한 입법규정은 없으나, 부동산등기법 제88조에 가등기는 부동산등기법 제3조에 규정한 권리의 설정 등등 보전하려할 때에 한다고 규정하고 있음으로 해석상 청구권보전의 효력을 인정할 수 있다. 그러나 독일민법 제883조제2항에 따르면, 가등기된 소유권이전에 대하여 상대적 무효를 주장할 수 있다. 그밖에 가등기의 순위보전의 효력에 의하여 가등기후 중간처분 등 물권변동이 있는 일정한 경우, 부동산등기규칙에 직권말소규정을 두고 있음으로서 해당 효력을 인정하고 있음을 알 수 있다. 예컨대, 가등기된 부동산의 이중매매에 의한 소유권이전이 발생한 경우, 가등기에 의한 본등기 후 해당 소유권이전등기는 직권말소하게 된다. 한편 가등기된 권리는 부동산등기법에 규정한 권리에 대한 청구권을 보전하는 것으로서 해당 청구권은 채권적 성격을 갖는다. 하지만 해당 청구권은 단순한 채권적 성격이 아닌, 이해관계인에 대한 대항력을 갖고, 더 나아가 상대적 무효를 주장할 수 있기 때문에 물권적 성격을 띤 채권이라고 볼 수 있다.

가등기담보등에 관한 법률 제11조 단서 후단의 ‘소유권 취득’의 의미와 효과 ― 대법원 2021. 10. 28. 선고 2016다248325 판결[공2021하,2229]의 평석 ―

정병호 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2022 서울법학 Vol.30 No.2

The case is as follows. After the provisional registration of the ownership transfer in the name of A for the real estate, A has completed the registration without going through the liquidation procedure, and then mortgage has been registered in the name of the defendant. In a case where the real estate was acquired by a third party through an compulsory auction, a dispute over the attribution of dividends between the plaintiff who acquired the liquidation claim of the debtor and the defendant who received dividends based on the mortgage registration. The Supreme Court decided that the registration of the ownership would be retroactively effective due to the acquisition of ownership by a third party, so that the right of A to the provisional registration for security has lapsed and mortgage registration of the defendant has become retroactively effective, the amount to be distributed to the plaintiff may have been extinguished at least partially. It is difficult to simply agree on ‘retroactive validity of the registration’, i.e. ‘retroactive acquisition of ownership’. ‘The Acquisition of ownership by a third party’ in the Article 11 of Provisional Registration Security is incompatible with the Civil Code, which does not recognize public credibility in real estate registration. It can be understood well in the sense that ‘the debtor cannot compete with a third party’ that registered ownership transfer based on this registration. So the validity of the registration of the ownership transfer, i.e. the acquisition of ownership, cannot be considered in this case. Even if we would accept the phrase literally, the view that the holder of the provisional registration of the ownership transfer acquires the ownership ‘retroactively’ cannot be in harmony with the legal doctrine of changes in property rights under the Civil Code. It would be better to recognize the defendant's right to the provisional registration based on A’s provisional registration, as in the original trial. 대상판결은 부동산에 소외 1 명의의 담보가등기가 이루어진 후 적법한 청산절차를 거치지 않은 채 본등기가 경료되고 그 뒤 피고 명의로 근저당권둥기가 경료되었고, 그 부동산을 경매에 의해 제3자가 취득한 사건에서 채무자의 청산금채권을 취득한 원고와 근저당권등기에 기초하여 배당을 받은 피고 사이에 배당금 귀속을 둘러싼 다툼에 관한 것이다. 원심은 청산금 지급없이 이루어져 무효인 본등기에 기초한 피고의 근저당권등기도 무효이지만, 담보가등기의 피담보채권에 대한 불가분채권자인 피고를 담보가등기권리자로 볼 수 있다고 하여, 그 피담보채권이 원고의 채권보다 우선한다고 본 반면, 대법원은 본등기가 제3자의 소유권취득에 의해 소급적으로 유효하므로 (피고가 아니라) 소외1 명의의 가등기담보권은 소멸했고 피고의 근저당권이 소급적으로 유효하게 되었다고 보면서도, 근저당권의 피담보채권이 적어도 일부 소멸했을 가능성이 있다는 이유로 원고에게 배당될 금액이 있는지 다시 판단할 것을 주문하였다. 대상판결이 그 결론을 도출하기 위해 본등기의 소급적 유효, 즉 소유권의 소급적 취득이라는 이례적인 법리를 동원하는 것에 쉽게 동의하기 어렵다. 등기의 공신력을 인정하지 않는 우리 부동산법제와 충돌하는 가등기담보법 제11조의 ‘제3자의 소유권 취득’을 무효인 본등기에 기초하여 소유권이전등기를 한 ‘제3자에게 대항하지 못한다’는 의미로 이해하면, 소외1의 본등기의 유효, 즉 소유권 취득도 생각할 수 없으며, 설령 문언대로 ‘제3자의 소유권 취득’으로 보더라도 그로 인해 담보가등기권리자가 소유권을 ‘소급적으로’ 취득한다는 것은 도저히 민법의 물권변동의 법리와 조화될 수 없다. 오히려 법리적 측면에서는 원심처럼 소외1 명의의 가등기에 기초하여 피고의 담보가등기권리를 인정하는 것이 더 낫다고 본다.

예고등기의 존폐논의에 관한 소고

박규용(Kyu Yong Park),박광동(Kwang Dong Park) 중앙법학회 2010 中央法學 Vol.12 No.2

Preannounced registration shall be filed by commission of court which has accepted a lawsuit in cases where a lawsuit for cancellation or restoration of registration due to nullity or revocation of grounds for registration has been instituted. However, this shall not apply to cases where such nullity or revocation cannot be set up against a third person acting in good faith. (Registration of Real Estate Act Article 4) The Preannounced registration is a preliminary registration in the way that it has no direct connection with the effect of alteration of a right. The Preannounced registration has the warning effect to third parties. However, the Preannounced registration has been abused for a drop in successful bid of auction for Real Estate. Hence, the Department of Justice made pre-announcement of legislation for the repeal of the Preannounced registration which in the whole amendment to Korean Real Estate Act in November 9th, 2009 because abuses of the Preannounced registration such as disadvantages of registered person on the transactions by the Preannounced registration or the Preannounced registration by the litigation for obstruction of the performance are serious and the practical function of the Preannounced registration has lost at the present time. There are several particulars which should be considered about this amendment. In other words, consideration by composition of change in a real right to return and problem of similar application of `Fictitious Declaration of Intention in Collusion` are existed in juridical; consideration about relationship with repeal of provisional registration and disposition is also needed in a legal system. Likewise, the problem of national cost-bearing would become an object of concern realistically. When these aspects are considered, the comparison between the abuse of the notice registration as practical problem and the relationship with other systems by the repeal and the national necessity is needed for the problem of the notice registration.

부실등기의 해결방안

김명수 한국부동산경영학회 2012 부동산경영 Vol.6 No.-

The real estate holds the domain which is important to the human life. People can have the real estate. However, the display of the real estate, items or the rights can be changed. I do a registration the role that I inform all people of this. Therefore, the people trust a registration and I trade. And I can be guaranteed of the safety of the dealing. Anyway, I cannot believe the untruth registration and one person cannot receive a dealing the protection. And it gets the great damage. Also, I cannot be guaranteed of the safety of the dealing. Accordingly, I argue that the following measures. ① I have to reconcile the account book which is in the registration and small government office. ② I have to install the public office managing a registration. ③ I have to improve the judicial scrivener system. ④ I have to receive a notarization in the certificate about the cause for the registration. ⑤ I have to change the judgment right of the officer taking charge of a registration. ⑥ I have to raise the talent of the officer taking charge of a registration. And I have to be specialized. ⑦ I have to change the reading system. ⑧ I have to inform the people of the knowledge about the real estate. And I have to strengthen a punishment. So, basically I have to solve the problem that I generate the untruth registration. Only this way, All people will be able to believe a registration and I will be able to trade. And the safety of the dealing will be guaranteed.

不動産登記의 有效要件에 關한 一考

김상현(Kim, Sang Hyun),이창석(Lee, Chang Suck) 한국부동산학회 2009 不動産學報 Vol.36 No.-

1. CONTENTS (1) RESEARCH OBJECTIVES In the fluctuations of the real right of real estate, there will be a real right action and registration together. So in the theory of the fluctuations of the real right it's the most important problem what kind of requisites must have if the effect of the fluctuations of the real right occurs with a real right action. In connection with these effective requisites, cspccially if the registration is cancelled illegally or omitted later, there are conflict opinions about the legal proceedings of the duplicating registration and the intermediate omitted registration. This study will present the rational and efficient solutions of those problems. (2) RESEARCH METHOD We choose literature research methods through various kinds of material domestic books and theses. (3) RESEARCH FINDINGS In case the registration is cancelled illegally or omitted later, there are two theories. The first is that the right of a substantive rightful person is continued existence. The second is that right becomes extinct. The former is proper. In the duplicating registration, there is a conflict among the theory in the adjective law, in the substantial law, and in the adjective law of the substantial law. The theory in the substantial law is adequate. In the intermediate omitted registration, there is a confrontation among the invalidity theory, relative invalidity theory and validity theory. The validity theory is reasonable. 2. RESULTS In case the registration is cancelled illegally or omitted later, the register is just the exterior of the rights and is not the right in itself. So in this case, the substantive right doesn't still cease to exist. In the case duplicating registration, whether preceding registration or last registration The registration done by substantive righter, is valid. That theory of the interpretation is desirable. In the intermediate omitted registration, if eventually the registration is completed at present to the person who has to have the real right, it must be valid despite of the flaw of the registration. That is desirable from the point of view of the legal stability. 3. KEY WORDS real estate registration, the effective requisites, duplicating registration, the intermediate omitted registration, cancelled illegally of registration.