민법 제366조의 법정지상권 = Article 366 of the Civil Code Legal Superficies

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 머리말 1
• 제1절 연구의 목적 1
• 제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 2
• Ⅰ. 연구의 범위 2
• Ⅱ. 연구의 방법 2
• 제2장 법정지상권의 연혁과 입법과정 4
• 제1절 의의 4
• 제2절 연혁과 입법과정 4
• Ⅰ. 연혁 4
• 1. 구민법과 법정지상권 4
• 2. 법정지상권의 입법과정 5
• 제3절 외국의 입법례 6
• Ⅰ. 독일 7
• Ⅱ. 프랑스 8
• Ⅲ. 일본 8
• 제4절 소결 9
• 제3장 민법 제366조 법정지상권의 내용 10
• 제1절 법정지상권의 인정이유 10
• Ⅰ. 공익적인 면만을 강조하는 견해(일원설) 10
• Ⅱ. 공익적인 면과 당사자의 의사 및 이익을 고려하는 견해(이원설) 10
• Ⅲ. 기존의 견해에 의문을 제기하는 견해 10
• 제2절 법정지상권의 성질 11
• Ⅰ. 서설 11
• 1. 학설 12
• (1) 다수설 12
• (2) 소수설 12
• Ⅱ. 판례 12
• Ⅲ. 검토 13
• 제3절 법정지상권의 내용 13
• Ⅰ. 법정지상권의 성립시기 13
• Ⅱ. 법정지상권이 효력을 미치는 토지의 범위 13
• Ⅲ. 법정지상권의 존속기간 14
• 1. 학설 14
• 2. 판례 16
• 3. 검토 16
• Ⅳ. 지료 17
• 1. 의의 17
• 2. 지료결정시점 및 기준 17
• 3. 지료결정의 효력 18
• Ⅴ. 법정지상권과 등기와의 관계 18
• 제4장 민법 제366조 법정지상권의 성립요건 20
• 제1절 저당권설정 당시 건물의 존재 20
• Ⅰ. 나대지에 저당권을 설정한 후 건물이 신축된 경우 20
• 1. 학설 20
• (1) 긍정설 20
• (2) 부정설 20
• 2. 판례 21
• 3. 검토 21
• Ⅱ. 나대지에 저당권을 설정할 당시 토지 위에 건물이 건축 중인 경우 22
• 1. 학설 23
• 2. 판례 23
• 3. 검토 23
• Ⅲ. 토지저당권자가 향후 건물축조를 승인한 경우 24
• 1. 학설 24
• (1) 긍정설 24
• (2) 부정설 24
• 2. 판례 25
• 3. 검토 25
• Ⅳ. 토지 또는 건물만에 대해 저당권을 설정할 당시 존재하던 건물이 증축개축재축신축 된 경우(단독저당) 26
• 1. 학설 26
• 2. 판례 28
• 3. 검토 28
• Ⅴ. 토지와 건물에 공동저당권이 설정된 후 건물이 멸실되고 신축한경우 29
• 1. 문제의 제기 29
• 2. 우리나라의 학설 및 판례 29
• (1) 우리나라의 학설 29
• (2) 우리나라의 판례 35
• (3) 검토 47
• 3. 일본의 학설 및 판례 49
• (1) 일본의 학설 49
• (2) 일본의 판례 52
• (3) 검토 52
• Ⅵ. 건물이 미등기 또는 무허가인 경우 54
• 1. 학설 54
• 2. 판례 55
• 3. 검토 55
• Ⅶ. 나대지에 1번 저당권이 설정된 후에 건물 축조 후 토지에 후순위 저당권이 설정되고 후순위 저당권자의 신청으로 경매가 이루어지는 경우 55
• 제2절 저당권설정 당시에 토지와 건물이 동일인의 소유일 것 56
• Ⅰ. 소유자의 동일성 문제 56
• Ⅱ. 저당권 설정 후 토지와 건물이 소유자가 변동된 경우 57
• Ⅲ. 저당권 설정 후 소유자가 동일한 경우 57
• 1. 토지와 그 건물의 소유자가 저당권 설정 당시에 다를 경우 57
• 2. 토지에 저당권을 설정 당시 토지와 건물의 소유자가 달랐으나 후에 동일인의 소유로 된 후 토지에 후순위 저당권을 설정한 경우 58
• 3. 건물에 저당권 설정 당시 토지와 그 정착건물의 소유자가 달랐으나 후에 동일인의 소유 및 건물에 후순위 저당권을 설정한 경 우 58
• Ⅳ. 가등기가 저당권설정전에 경료된 경우 59
• Ⅴ. 가족이 소유자인 경우 60
• Ⅵ. 토지와 그 정착건물이 공유인 경우 61
• 제3절 저당권의 설정 61
• 제4절 경매의 결과 토지와 건물의 소유자가 달라질 것 62
• Ⅰ. 학설 62
• Ⅱ. 판례 63
• Ⅲ. 검토 63
• 제5절 민법 제365조의 일괄경매청구권 63
• Ⅰ. 의의 63
• Ⅱ. 취지 65
• 1. 학설 65
• 2. 판례 65
• 3. 검토 66
• Ⅲ. 일괄경매제도의 성립요건 66
• 1. 토지에 저당권을 설정할 당시 그 지상에 건물이 없을 것 66
• 2. 일괄경매의 신청당시에 토지와 그 정착건물의 소유자가 동일할 것 67
• Ⅳ. 법정지상권과 일괄경매청구권과의 관계 68
• 1. 학설 68
• (1) 상호배척관계설 69
• (2) 상호중첩관계설 69
• 2. 판례 70
• 3. 검토 71
• 제5장 민법 제366조 법정지상권 개선방안 72
• 제1절 내용상의 개선방안 72
• Ⅰ. 법정지상권 존속기간의 효율적 적용 72
• Ⅱ. 법정지상권자와 토지소유자의 지료산정 구체화 73
• Ⅲ. 법정지상권의 명확성을 위한 공시기능 확대 75
• Ⅳ. 일괄경매청구권의 확장 77
• Ⅴ. 제289조의 4(법정지상권) 신설관련 용어의 명확화 80
• 제6장 맺음말 82
• 참고문헌 85
• (Abstract) 90