용익물권의 양도와 승계

전경운 경희대학교 법학연구소 2016 경희법학 Vol.42 No.3

A real right is one of property rights and thus can be legally transferred. Although a person concerned entered into a special agreement not to transfer a real right, the agreement should be null and void. Nevertheless, there are many cases where the usufructuary real right cannot be transferred, and moreover, there is a wide variation in them. Above all, the civil law shows that superficies is an independent real right and thus is transferable undisputedly. In fact, it provides that superficies can be transferred. However, the reality is that many of persons with superficies do not transfer their superficies but reserve it when transferring their buildings. At any rate, it is a principle that superficies should be transferred except in cases where a special agreement has been made between persons concerned. This legal principle is applied even to divided superficies. Meanwhile, special superficies such as statutory superficies, customary law-based statutory superficies and the site right of graveyards are separated from property on the ground, and therefore they should not be transferred. In particular, the site right of graveyards should not be transferred along with the graves. As regards collateral superficies, some precedents regarded it as a kind of superficies, but at the same time as appendant to mortgage. It means that collateral superficies should be separated from mortgage and thus should not be transferred. The servitude, granted for the convenience of a dominant tenement, is a real right. Regarding the dominant tenement, however, servitude alone should not be transferred, being separated from ownership. It is because ownership and appendant nature are recognized by law. In addition, it is involved in ownership or usufruct when one of them is transferred. This is because concomitant nature is recognized. With regard to the right to lease on a deposit basis, it can be transferred without the consent of the lease settler except in cases where transfer is prohibited in the act of establishment. Specifically, the lease creditor can transfer his or her right to lease on a deposit basis or can put it up as collateral, and furthermore can sublease the object within the duration of the right. According to a precedent, the right to lease on a deposit basis is like a real right granted by way of security, and therefore involves appendant and concomitant natures. Thus, the claim to the repayment of lease deposit alone should not be transferred irrevocably, independently from the right to lease on a deposit basis, while being retained. 물권은 재산권으로서 당연히 양도성이 있으며, 당사자가 양도금지특약을 하여도 무효라고 한다. 하지만 실제 용익물권의 종류에 따라서 물권의 양도성에 관한 일반적인 설명이 그대로 적용되지 않고, 용익물권의 종류에 따라 양도와 승계에 있어서 상당한 차이를 보여주고 있다. 먼저 민법상 일반지상권은 독립된 물권이므로 당연히 양도성이 인정되고, 민법 제282조는 지상권의 양도성을 명정하고 있다. 그러나 지상권의 목적물인 건물을 양도할 때, 지상권자는 지상권을 유보하고 건물을 양도할 수 있지만, 당사자간의 반대특약이 없는 한 원칙적으로 지상권도 함께 양도한 것으로 보아야 한다는 입장이 다수의 견해로 주장되고 있고, 판례도 이를 일부 인정하고 있는 것으로 볼 수 있다. 이러한 법리는 구분지상권에도 그대로 적용된다. 그리고 특수지상권으로서 법정지상권·관습법상의 법정지상권·분묘기지권은 지상물과 분리하여 그 권리 자체의 양도성이 인정되지 않는다고 할 것이다. 또한 분묘기지권은 분묘와 함께도 양도성이 인정되지 않는다고 해야 할 것이다. 그리고 판례에 의하여 인정되는 담보지상권은 일반지상권이지만, 판례에 의하면 저당권에의 부종성을 인정하고 있으므로 저당권과 분리하여 별도로 양도할 수 없다고 해야 할 것이다. 요역지의 편익을 위하여 인정되는 지역권은 독립된 물권이지만, 요역지 소유권과 부종성이 인정되어 요역지 소유권과 분리하여 지역권만을 양도할 수 없으며, 또한 수반성이 인정되어 요역지의 소유권 또는 이용권이 이전되면 이에 수반해서 이전된다. 끝으로 전세권의 경우에는 설정행위에서 금지되어 있지 않는 한 전세권설정자의 동의없이 전세권을 자유로이 양도할 수 있다. 즉 전세권자는 그의 전세권을 양도하거나 담보로 제공할 수 있고, 또한 그 존속기간내에 그 목적물을 타인에게 전전세하거나 임대할 수 있다. 하지만 전세권은 전세권설정행위에서 금지되지 않는 한에서 양도성이 인정된다는 점에서 지상권과 차이가 있다. 지상권의 경우에는 당사자의 양도금지특약은 무효이기 때문이다. 그리고 판례에 의하면 전세권은 담보물권적 성격도 가지는 이상 부종성과 수반성이 있으므로, 전세권이 존속하는 동안 전세권을 존속시키기로 하면서 전세금반환채권만을 전세권과 분리하여 확정적으로 양도할 수 없다고 한다.

용익물권의 양도와 승계

전경운(Chun, Kyoung-Un) 경희법학연구소 2016 경희법학 Vol.51 No.3

A real right is one of property rights and thus can be legally transferred. Although a person concerned entered into a special agreement not to transfer a real right, the agreement should be null and void. Nevertheless, there are many cases where the usufructuary real right cannot be transferred, and moreover, there is a wide variation in them. Above all, the civil law shows that superficies is an independent real right and thus is transferable undisputedly. In fact, it provides that superficies can be transferred. However, the reality is that many of persons with superficies do not transfer their superficies but reserve it when transferring their buildings. At any rate, it is a principle that superficies should be transferred except in cases where a special agreement has been made between persons concerned. This legal principle is applied even to divided superficies. Meanwhile, special superficies such as statutory superficies, customary law-based statutory superficies and the site right of graveyards are separated from property on the ground, and therefore they should not be transferred. In particular, the site right of graveyards should not be transferred along with the graves. As regards collateral superficies, some precedents regarded it as a kind of superficies, but at the same time as appendant to mortgage. It means that collateral superficies should be separated from mortgage and thus should not be transferred. The servitude, granted for the convenience of a dominant tenement, is a real right. Regarding the dominant tenement, however, servitude alone should not be transferred, being separated from ownership. It is because ownership and appendant nature are recognized by law. In addition, it is involved in ownership or usufruct when one of them is transferred. This is because concomitant nature is recognized. With regard to the right to lease on a deposit basis, it can be transferred without the consent of the lease settler except in cases where transfer is prohibited in the act of establishment. Specifically, the lease creditor can transfer his or her right to lease on a deposit basis or can put it up as collateral, and furthermore can sublease the object within the duration of the right. According to a precedent, the right to lease on a deposit basis is like a real right granted by way of security, and therefore involves appendant and concomitant natures. Thus, the claim to the repayment of lease deposit alone should not be transferred irrevocably, independently from the right to lease on a deposit basis, while being retained. 물권은 재산권으로서 당연히 양도성이 있으며, 당사자가 양도금지특약을 하여도 무효라고한다. 하지만실제용익물권의종류에따라서물권의양도성에관한일반적인설명이그대로 적용되지 않고, 용익물권의 종류에 따라 양도와 승계에 있어서 상당한 차이를 보여주고 있다. 먼저민법상일반지상권은독립된물권이므로당연히양도성이인정되고, 민법제282조는지상권의 양도성을 명정하고 있다. 그러나 지상권의 목적물인 건물을 양도할 때, 지상권자는 지상권을 유보하고 건물을 양도할 수 있지만, 당사자간의 반대특약이 없는 한 원칙적으로지상권도함께양도한것으로보아야한다는입장이다수의견해로주장되고있고, 판례도 이를 일부 인정하고 있는 것으로 볼 수 있다. 이러한 법리는 구분지상권에도 그대로 적용된다. 그리고 특수지상권으로서 법정지상권·관습법상의 법정지상권·분묘기지권은 지상물과분리하여그권리자체의양도성이인정되지않는다고할것이다. 또한분묘기지권은분 묘와 함께도 양도성이 인정되지 않는다고 해야 할 것이다. 그리고 판례에 의하여 인정되는담보지상권은 일반지상권이지만, 판례에 의하면 저당권에의 부종성을 인정하고 있으므로저당권과 분리하여 별도로 양도할 수 없다고 해야 할 것이다. 요역지의 편익을 위하여 인정되는 지역권은 독립된 물권이지만, 요역지 소유권과 부종성이 인정되어 요역지 소유권과 분리하여 지역권만을 양도할 수 없으며, 또한 수반성이 인정되어 요역지의 소유권 또는 이용권이 이전되면 이에 수반해서 이전된다. 끝으로 전세권의 경우에는 설정행위에서 금지되어 있지 않는 한 전세권설정자의 동의없이전세권을자유로이양도할수있다. 즉전세권자는그의전세권을양도하거나담보로제공할 수 있고, 또한 그 존속기간내에 그 목적물을 타인에게 전전세하거나 임대할 수 있다. 하지만 전세권은 전세권설정행위에서 금지되지 않는 한에서 양도성이 인정된다는 점에서지상권과차이가있다. 지상권의경우에는당사자의양도금지특약은무효이기때문이다. 그리고판례에의하면전세권은담보물권적성격도가지는이상부종성과수반성이있으므로,전세권이존속하는동안전세권을존속시키기로하면서전세금반환채권만을전세권과분리하여 확정적으로 양도할 수 없다고 한다.

中國物權法의 制定過程에서의 物權法과 憲法의 葛藤과 調和

소재선 경희대학교 법학연구소 2010 경희법학 Vol.45 No.3

In China, generally the ‘Property Rights’ are defined as rights that can be dominated directly, and enforceable against all other people. Although China has considered the ‘Property Rights’ as an indispensable concept in the Civil Law System since 1980, none of the Chinese laws or regulations had used such concept until the ‘Property Rights Law’ went into effect in 2007. But, The Property Law of the People’s Republic of China was adopted by the 5th Plenary Session of the 10th National People’s Congress in March 16, 2007 and went into effect on October 1, 2007. As the first property law getting into effect in PRC, it significantly explained the nature of Property Law with Chinese characteristics. Moreover, as the newest Property Law among the main countries in the world, it caused close attentions from all over the world. Although it had been pointed out that the modification of The Property Law, which overcome the limits of private property so as to support the economic activities in market under the Socialist System, is indispensable, such work had still been on heavy progressing. The reason is that, compared with The Chinese Contract Law and The Chinese Security Law, The Chinese Property Law is one of the most indigenous laws and as for one of them, it is closely related to the existence method or an economic structure of a nation. Because the private property rights, which are advocated by Property Law, may protect the unjustified benefit that happened during the reformation, or immobilize the widen gap between the rich and the poor, the biggest problem that it may destroy the socialistic position of communist China happened, which well reflected the economic psychology to specific risks during the legislation. The trace of the claims could be found in the law itself, that The Property Law of China is an unconstitutional legislation. Particularly, it is easy to guess from the each real right and the reservations about the regulation of supervisory authority of the nation and etc, that The Property Law of China that adheres closely to the public ownership of the land and protects the national property, and it establishes law and order in harmony to private ownership will accompany many technical difficulties. The disputed issues should be taken into consideration during the legislation. Taking the transfer of property right as an example, which also caused big issues in South Korea’s adoption of new Civil Law, regarding to this issue, it is seen that The Chinese Property Law did not adopt the formalist principle as that of South Korea, but adopted the Autonomy of Will, which is similar with Japan Property and France Property Law. According to this, The Chinese Property Law which just enforced can be considered as an attractive one.

“삼권분할”배경하에서 토지경영권의 발생시스템 연구

김로륜 ( Jin Lulun ),이현미 ( Li Xianmei ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2021 법학논총 Vol.45 No.1

종래의 토지도급경영권에 관한 “삼권분할”은 정책적인 측면에서 추진되었다. “전면적으로 농촌개혁을 심화하고 농업현대화를 추진하는데 관한 의견”에서 중앙 문건의 형식으로 “삼권분할”의 구상을 제기한 뒤, “삼권분할”개혁에 관하여 여러 정책에서 이것을 반영하기 시작하였다. “농촌토지도급법” 제9조는 처음으로 토지도급경영권을 토지도급권과 토지경영권으로 분할하여 규정하였고 제10조에서는 토지소유권, 토지도급권과 토지경영권을 분할하여 규정하였다. 이것은 토지 도급경영권에 관한 “삼권분할”이 국가정책에서 법률로 전환되었음을 의미한다. 공포된 “농촌토지도급법”에서 토지경영권의 법적지위에 관한 규정이 모호하기 때문에 토지경영권의 권리성질을 확정할 필요성이 제기되었다. “삼권분할”의 배경하에서 토지경영권이라는 새로운 유형의 권리를 어떻게 해석하는가에 따라 농촌토지의 권리체계 구축에 직접적인 영향을 미치며 나아가서 농촌토지법제개혁의 성공여부를 좌우지 할 수 있다. 학계에서는 토지경영권의 법적성질에 관하여 “물권론”과 “채권론”의 대립이 있다. “물권론”은 차급 용익토지도급경영권의 개념을 도입할 것을 주장하고 “채권론”은 종래의 도급경영권자가 토지권리를 제3자에게 이전하여 경영하는 것은 “채권이용권”에 해당하다고 주장한다. 농촌토지의 유동이 제한을 받고 경영효율이 낮으며 농민의 권리가 보장받지 못하는 등 문제점에 입각하면 토지경영권을 농업경영을 중심으로 하는 용익물권으로 해석하는 것이 보다 합리적이다. 본고에서는 물권발생에 관한 체계적인 분석 및 법해석학을 통하여 특정화된 법률언어가 상이한 환경에서 나타내는 의미 및 물권권리 외연확대의 필요성을 검토하였다. 농촌토지의 가치를 최대화하고 토지양도,저당등 방면에서 여러 제도의 합리적인 적용을 모색하여 토지경영권제도의 부족점을 보충함에 있어서 건설적인 의견을 제시하고자 한다. In the past, the promotion of the “separation of three rights” of land contractual management right was mainly reflected in the national policy level. Since the “opinions on comprehensively deepening rural reform and accelerating agricultural modernization” first put forward the idea of “separation of three rights” in the form of a central document, the idea of “separation of three rights” has also been reflected in other national policy documents. Article 9 of the law of the people’s Republic of China on rural land contract divides the right of land contract and management into the right of land contract and the right of land management for the first time, and stipulates in Article 10 that the right of land management is protected according to law, which means that the “separation of three rights” has initially realized the transformation from national policies to legal norms. The newly revised “rural land contract law” has a vague legal position on the right of land management, and it is an unavoidable problem to define the nature of the right of land management. In the context of “separation of three rights”, how to deconstruct this new right will directly affect the construction of the new farmland right system and the success of the whole farmland legal reform. The academic debate on the nature of land management right mainly exists between “property right theory” and “creditor’s right theory”. The main content of “property right theory” is to try to include the concept of secondary usufructuary land contractual management right. “Creditor’s right theory” holds that the original contractual management right owner’s land rights to a third person should belong to “creditor’s right to use”. Combined with the problems of limited circulation of rural land, low operating efficiency and insufficient protection of farmers’ rights and interests in practice, it is more reasonable to define the land management right as the usufruct with the content of agricultural operation. Based on the analysis of the structure of real right generation system, this paper takes the standardization of legal interpretation as the basic requirement to explain the different application of specific legal language in different situations and the necessity of the expansion of real right. Finally, it provides feasible suggestions to improve the land management right system.

中國 農村家庭土地受給經營權 流動化에 따른 과제

조동제(Cho Dong-Je),沈萍(Shen Ping) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2010 東亞法學 Vol.- No.48

The significance of studying Rural Land Contractual Management Right is set by the importance of the Rural Land Contractual Management System, which has tremendous influence in Chinese Land legislation, with its core part of guaranteeing the transferring of Management Right of Land Contract(hereinafter called the Transferring System). Nowadays during the process of reform and opening up, with the development of industrialization and marketability, to innovate the Transferring System, establish and keep improving the allocation mechanism of the rural land resource according to the rules of market-oriented economy, became the key for solving the Three Dimensional Rural Issues. However, the Transferring System still meets problems while execution, due to the lack of a sound and unified market, as well as the imperfectness of the existing Rural Land System. The author of this thesis raised her own idea and suggestion toward these problems, by the way of analysing the existing circumstance and the barriers during the execution of the Transferring System, under the policy of Balance Urban and Rural Development.