http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
강제경매로 인한 관습법상 법정지상권의 성립시기 - 대법원 2012. 10. 18. 선고 2010다52140 전원합의체판결을 소재로 하여 -
배성호 한국토지법학회 2014 土地法學 Vol.30 No.2
First, this study examines the history and the grounds for acceptance of statutory superficies for a preliminary work in the customary laws. In the main discussion, it reviews the requirements for establishment of statutory superficies in the customary laws, examines the of the cases and the time when established, centering on the requirements that the building and the land should belong to the same owner, andparticular the time of determining the owner identity of the land and the building in case of seizure or/and temporary seizure. Finally, it tried to determine whether the rulings in concern were appropriate. In order for statutory superficies to be established in the customary law, at the time when in principle either land or building is disposed that is, if the land and the building above the ground belongs to the ownership of the same person at the time of auction, it can meet the requirement. However, in the case of the compulsory auction by temporary seizure, it should be treated in a different way. Namely, in case, it should be determined how to determine the same person’s ownership the land and the building regarding the establishment of statutory superficies in the customary law, according to the time when the temporary seizure comes into force rather than when the selling occurs. It is because in the auction procedure the legal status of the persons concerned is determined on the basis of the time of seizure or provisional seizure, and afterwards the completed registration will be expired by official authority as soon as the sales payment is fully made as long as the buyer does not take over. According to the theory of criterion on the time of sale, it will lead to the conclusion that the statutory superficies are admitted based on the expired registration likewise. So, the theory of the criterion on time when the temporary seizure comes into force is appropriate. Hence, in the compulsory auction caused by the provisional seizure, the viewpoint(attitude) of the ruling in concern can be said to be appropriate because it settled when to determine the owner identity of the land or the building for the establishment of statutory superficies in the customary law, based upon the time when provisional seizure comes into force. 본 연구는 먼저 기초작업으로 관습법상의 법정지상권의 연혁과 인정근거를 살펴보고, 본론에 있어 관습법상의 법정지상권의 성립요건을 검토하면서 특히 토지와 건물이 동일소유자에게 속할 것이라는 요건을 중심으로 판례의 유형화와 그 성립시기에 대하여, 특히 가압류 및/또는 압류가 있는 경우의 토지와 건물의 소유자동일성을 판단하는 시기 등에 대하여 살펴보고, 대상판결의 당부를 판단해 보고자 하였다. 관습법상 법정지상권이 성립하기 위하여는 원칙적으로 토지와 건물 중 어느 하나가 처분될 당시, 가령 경락시에 토지와 그 지상건물이 동일인의 소유에 속하였으면 족하다. 그러나 가압류에 기한 강제경매의 경우에는 이와 달리 하여야 한다. 즉 가압류에 기한 강제경매의 경우 관습법상의 법정지상권의 성립에 관한 토지와 건물의 소유자동일성의 판단여부는 매각시가 아니라 가압류의 효력이 발생하는 때를 기준으로 판단하여야 할 것이다. 왜냐하면 경매절차에서 이해관계인들의 법적 지위는 압류 또는 가압류 시점을 기준으로 결정되고, 그 이후 경료된 등기는 매수인이 인수하지 않는 한 매각대금이 완납되면 직권으로 말소되는데, 매각시기준설에 의하면 그와 같이 말소되는 등기에 근거한 법정지상권을 인정하는 결과가 되기 때문에 가압류효력발생시기준설이 타당하기 때문이다. 따라서 가압류에 기한 강제경매에 있어 관습법상 법정지상권의 성립을 위한 토지와 건물의 소유자동일성을 판단하는 시기를 가압류효력발생시로 정리한 대상판결의 태도는 타당하다고 할 것이다.
A Study on Safeguards As a Means to Bring Protectionism Back to Korea – U.S. Trade
배성호 한국관세학회 2017 관세학회지 Vol.18 No.1
The goals of the WTO is to promote free and fair international trade. It ultimately means a trade liberalization through lowering tariff rate and deregulation. The WTO Member countries have formed various Regional Trade Agreements to expedite trade liberalization. However, in cases where import surge causes serious injury to domestic industries which produce like products, the WTO and RTA Agreements provide leeways for an importing party to cure the injury through measures, including countervailing duty, anti-dumping, and safeguards. Recent trade policies announced by the United States are heavily based on protectionism. Such a protectionism will affect South Korea and may lead to the KORUS FTA renegotiation. Safeguard is a less-complicated measure to take because it belongs to the President’s discretion, and the serious injury does not need to be caused due to an unfair trade. Rather, safeguard may be implemented even where a trade is entirely fair. The importance of understanding safeguards procedure is significant. Therefore, this paper will discuss three legal bases (the law of the WTO, the Trade Act of 1974 of the United States, and the KORUS FTA) on safeguards.