점유취득시효 완성자의 대상청구권

여미숙 사법발전재단 2021 사법 Vol.1 No.55

Although there is no provision on the claim right of vicarious compensation in the Korean Civil Act, the majority theory and precedents understand that it is a general remedy of creditors in case of the impossibility of performance and the money earned from the debtor's sale of real estate is also a vicarious compensation. The Civil Act stipulates that a person who has completed acquisitive prescription by possession shall acquire the ownership by making registration. Precedents state that the acquisitive prescription completed person has the right to claim for registration against the owner at the time of the completion of the acquisitive prescription, but not against the person who acquires the ownership after the completion of the acquisitive prescription. The theory on whether the acquisitive prescription completed person has the claim right of vicarious compensation when the owner is unable to fulfill the obligation to transfer the registration depends on the view on the legal status of the acquisitive prescription completed person and the legal nature of the right to request registration. The fact that Article 245(1) of the Civil Act requires making registration for the acquisitive prescription completed person to acquire the ownership is meaningful in that it can clarify legal relations and promote the safety of transactions because the timing of the change in ownership may be unclear and disputes may arise if the ownership is acquired without making registration only by completing the acquisition prescription for real estate registered in the name of another person. Under the above provision, the acquisitive prescription completed person acquires the status to request the registration against the owner, and the right to claim for registration is referred to as a right to demand claims of creditor. Precedents admit tort liability when the owner disposes of the real estate after the completion of the acquisitive prescription even though he/she knows the fact. The precedents and the theory in support thereof affirm the claim right of vicarious compensation of the acquisitive prescription completed person only when he/she asserted the right or exercised the right to request registration before the owner's inability to perform, which is similar to the requirement for the recognition of tort liability. The disposition of the real estate by the owner who is obligated to transfer registration to the acquisitive prescription completed person results in the impossibility of performance. This is not a problem of tort liability, but liability for default of obligation. It has no justifiable ground to limit the claim right of vicarious compensation of the acquisitive prescription completed person according to the right to claim damages for tort which differs in nature and function. It is not logical to try to adjust the interests by limiting the responsibilities of the owner to a certain range while viewing the right to claim for registration as a right to demand claims of creditor. Even though it is difficult to expect the occupant to exercise the right to request registration immediately after the completion of the acquisitive prescription, requesting this means not recognizing the claim right of vicarious compensation. It has an unfair result that the occupant who was able to acquire the ownership of the real estate cannot obtain the profit on its behalf. In particular, when the real estate is expropriated, the owner does not bear the liability for damages due to the inability to fulfill the registration obligation and obtains unexpected profits, which is contrary to the ideology of fairness. Claim right of vicarious compensation is the return of the profits earned by the debtor in place of performance of obligations and there is no basis to consider that Article 245(1) excludes that the profits go to the creditor. The owner must return the profits obtained from the impossibility of performance to the acquisitive presc... 우리 민법에는 대상청구권에 관한 규정이 없으나 다수의 학설과 판례의 태도와 같이 이행불능의 일반적인 효과로서 대상청구권을 인정하고, 채무자가 목적물을 매도하여 얻은 매매대금에 대하여도 대상청구권을 인정하는 것이 타당하다. 민법은 점유취득시효기간이 만료된 부동산의 점유자는 등기함으로써 소유권을 취득한다고 규정하고 있고, 판례에 따르면 시효완성자는 시효완성 당시의 소유자에 대하여 등기청구권을 가지나 시효완성 후에 새로이 소유권을 취득한 자에 대하여는 시효취득을 주장할 수 없다. 취득시효 완성 후 소유권이 이전되어 소유자가 등기의무를 이행할 수 없게 된 경우 시효완성자의 대상청구권을 인정할 것인지 여부에 관하여는 시효완성자의 법적 지위 및 시효완성자가 소유자에 대하여 가지는 등기청구권의 법적 성질을 어떻게 보느냐에 따라 견해를 달리한다. 민법 제245조 제1항이 점유취득시효로 인한 소유권 취득에 등기를 요건으로 규정하고 있는 것은 타인 명의로 등기된 부동산에 대하여도 점유취득시효를 인정하는 특수한 입법하에서 취득시효 완성으로 등기 없이 소유권을 취득하게 되는 경우 권리변동의 시기가 불분명하여 분쟁을 초래할 수 있으므로 법률관계를 명확히 하고 거래의 안전을 도모할 수 있다는 점에 의미가 있는바, 위 규정에 의할 때 시효완성자는 소유자에 대하여 시효완성으로 인한 등기를 청구할 수 있는 지위를 취득하고 그 등기청구권은 채권적 청구권이라고 할 것이다. 판례는 소유자가 취득시효 완성 후 그 사실을 알고도 부동산을 처분한 경우 불법행위책임을 인정하는데, 시효완성자의 대상청구권에 관한 판례와 이를 지지하는 학설은 시효완성자의 등기청구권을 채권적 청구권이라고 보면서도 시효완성자의 대상청구권에 관하여 위 불법행위 성립기준과 유사하게 시효완성자가 소유자의 이행불능 전에 권리를 주장하거나 등기청구권을 행사한 경우에 한하여 이를 인정한다. 그러나 취득시효 완성 후 소유자가 그 부동산을 처분하는 행위는 채무자인 소유자가 시효완성자에 대하여 부담하고 있는 채무를 스스로 이행불능에 빠뜨리는 것이어서 원칙적으로 불법행위가 아니라 채무불이행 문제가 되며, 일반 대상청구권과 달리 시효완성자의 대상청구권을 본질과 기능이 다른 불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구권에 맞추어 제한하는 것은 정당한 근거가 없으며, 시효완성자의 소유자에 대한 등기청구권을 채권적 청구권으로 보면서 소유자의 책임을 일정 범위로 제한하여 시효완성자와 소유자의 이익을 조정하려는 것은 논리가 일관되지 않는다. 또한 시효완성자가 시효완성 후 바로 등기청구권을 행사할 것을 기대하기 어려움에도 이를 요구하는 것은 사실상 대상청구권을 인정하지 않는 것이 되어 부동산의 소유권을 취득할 수 있었던 시효완성자가 이를 대신하는 이익은 얻을 수 없다는 불공평한 결과를 가져오며, 특히 소유자가 부동산을 처분한 경우가 아닌 부동산이 수용된 경우에는 소유자는 등기의무를 이행할 수 없게 된 데에 따른 손해배상책임도 부담하지 않으면서 예상하지 못한 이익을 얻는 부당한 결과가 생기게 되므로 시효완성자의 대상청구권의 요건을 제한하는 것은 공평의 이념에 반한다. 민법 제245조 제1항에 의하여 성립하는 소유자와 시효완성자 사이의 채권채무관계가 다른 법정채권채무관계와 달리 목적물의 ...

2차 점유취득시효기간 중 소유권이 변동된 경우 시효완성자의 법적 지위 : 대법원 전원합의체 2009. 7. 16. 선고 2007다15172, 15189 판결

정구태(KUTAE CHUNG) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2010 서강법학 Vol.12 No.1

With regard to the case where the ownership of the real estate is transferred to a third party before the real estate, of which acquisitive prescription was completed by possession, is registered, the Korean Supreme Court ruled as in the following: Notwithstanding that the point of time, when the owner has been changed from the original possessor to the new one, is reckoned as the starting point, the possessor may reckon the starting point of new acquisitive prescription by possession from the point of time when the ownership has been transferred to the third party in case the prescription has been expired as well as may claim for the completion of the secondary acquisitive prescription. And although the possessor is transferred on the register before the acquisitive prescription is expired, it is irrational to regard it to be what the possessor has broken off the factual state, hence it has no occasion to suspend acquisitive prescription. In result, the new registered owner is regarded to be directly involved in the transfer of rights and duties at the point of time when acquisitive prescription is completed, by which the registered owner is disadvantaged. Accordingly, the one who completed prescription may claim for the acquisition of prescription to the registered owner. In addition, the Supreme Court judged that the juridical principle might be applied to even the case where the secondary acquisitive prescription takes effect as above and the registered owner is changed before the prescription of possession is expired. Consequently, unlike this, the Supreme Court broke the previous precedents that the registrant should not be changed during possession even in the case of the secondary prescription of possession. Such ruling may be considered to be a juridical interpretation that has taken the so-called five principles of precedents to a higher level, and to be appropriate for the purpose of the acquisitive prescription by possession.

점유취득시효 완성자와 제3자 -대판(전) 2009.7.16, 2007다15172,15189를 글감으로 하여-

배성호 ( Sung Ho Bae ) 영남대학교 법학연구소 2010 영남법학 Vol.0 No.31

취득시효완성자의 대상청구권

권용우 ( Yong Woo Kwon ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2006 법학논총 Vol.30 No.1

In Bezug auf den Surrogationsanspruch des Glaubigen infolge der unmoglichen Leistung ist im koreanischen Burgerlichen Gesetzbuch keine ausdruckliche Regelung enthalten. Im Schriftum und in der Rechtsprechung wird dennoch die Ansicht vertreten, dass dem Glaubigen das Anspruchsrecht auf das Surrogat zuerkannt warden soll. Umstritten ist aber, ob auch dem Erwerber durch die Ersitzung, der durch Ablauf der Ersitzungsfrist beim Besitz das Eigentumsrecht an Grundstucken erworben hat, ebenfalls der Surrogationsanspruch zuerkannt werden soll, wenn es sich hier um die unmogliche Leistung hinsichtlich des Anspruchrechts auf grundbucherliche Eintragung handelt. Die Rechtsprechung des koreanischen Oberstgerichtshofs uber diese Frage, ob das Anspruchsrecht auf das Surrogat auch dem Ersitzungserwerber zuerkannt werden soll, bleibt nicht konsequent. Der Oberstgerichtshof hat durch das Urteil 94 da 25025 vom 9. 12. 1994 dem Ersitzungserwerber das Anspruchsrecht auf Entschadigung bei Grundstucksenteignung zuerkannt, und seitdem hat er erstmal weiterhin konsequent daran festgehalten. Der Oberstgerichtshof hat dann im Urteil 94 da 43825 vom 10. 12. 1996, wobei es sich im Grunde um gleiches wie im genannten Urteil vom 1994 handelt, die Ansicht geaußert, dass in diesem Fall die Ausubung des Surrogationsanspruchs durch den Ersitzungserwerber des Grundstucks nicht grenzenlos erlaubt, sondern beschrankt werden soll. Nach diesem Urteil sei namlich zur Ausubung des Surrogationsanspruchs durch den Ersitzungserwerber wegen der unmoglichen Leistung neben der allgemeinen Grundvoraussetzung dafur weitere zusatzliche Voraussetzung notwendig, dass er vor dem Eintritt der unmoglichen Leistung gegen die eingetragene Person das Recht infolge der Ersitzung behaupten oder den Eintragungsanspruch wegen der Ersitzung erheben muss. Nach der Begrundung des Oberstgerichtshofs entspricht es dies der Idee der Billigkeit, dass der Ersitzungserwerber an Grundstucken das Anspruchsrecht auf das Surrogat aufgrund der Nichterfullung hinsichtlich des Eintragungsanspruchs nicht ausuben kann, wenn er vorher das Recht wegen der Ersitzung gegen die eintragungspflichtige Person nicht behauptet oder ausgeubt hat. Ich schließe mich dieser Ansicht des Oberstgerichtshofs an.

한국민법에 있어서 취득시효완성의 효과

이기용 한국민사법학회 2007 民事法學 Vol.37 No.-

In Korea a successful Adverse Possessor cannot be a owner without registering his right to Land Recording even though he possessed the land during the requisite time period with required qualities of the Adverse Possession. That is caused by particularity of Korean Civil Code §245.Ⅰ. referring to “acquire rear property by registering his title to Land Recording". Such Statutes dealing with Adverse Possession is a rare legal system in a view of comparative law. Korean Civil Code §245.Ⅰ is derived from Roman Law, called ‘Usucapion' like other European Laws, but it was modified and designed subtly by the legislator, the Chief Justice of Korean Supreme Court Byungro Kim. Because of the uncertainty of Korean Civil Code §245.Ⅰ, so many problems of law and dispute are occurring and precedents come into conflict with each cases in some aspects. Therefore many scholars and lawyers are try to explain that problems logically and clearly. Some of them and Korean Supreme Court agreed to a conclusion that Adverse Possessor cannot be a owner without registering because of the Korean Civil Code §245.Ⅰ. But I think that interpretation of §245.Ⅰ. is not correct and is not a appropriate way to regulate privity. Historically and substantially the Adverse Possession is irrelevantly developed and creates a new and complete title in the possessor by itself. And the Adverse Possession does not transfer the former owner's title to the present possessor. So, if the possession has satisfied those elements like 20 years duration of time, open and notorious and etc. but registering, it would be better to interpret that the Adverse Possessor should become a owner in spite of the legislative restriction. In my opinion, that will be a succinct legal theory to solve the confused problems of Adverse Possession and to reach reasonable consequences.