不動産占有取得時效制度의 違憲性 小考 = A Exploratory Study on the Unconstitutionality of Acquisitive Prescription of Real Property by Possession

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Article 245, Clause 1 of Civil Law regulates “if the person who takes possession of the real property tranquilly and futilely by the proprietary intent for 20 years register it, he would get the proprietary rights of it”. In 1993, the Constitutional Court said, the substantive interests about the real property of the object of a right between the owner of the real property who defaults exercising his rights for a long time and originally the unrightfully person who takes possession of the real property tranquilly and futilely by the proprietary intent for 20 years (it seems to be a constancy) shows the need of the acquisitive prescription system. Correlatively, under the fairness the possessor who has heavier substantial interest acquires the claim of transfer the real property from the owner of the real property. Therefore it does not violate the ideal and limit of guarantee of the property rights ruled by Article 23, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Additionally if the original owner forfeited of his ownership without an indemnification, compensation or restitution of unjust enrichment, it would be followed reflexive effect of the acquisitive prescription. It concretely formed the substance and limitation about gains and losses of the real property ownership which is the property rights ensured by the constitution. So it does not violate Article 37, Clause 1 of the Constitution which regulates limit of the restriction of the fundamental human rights. It should be comprehended the system of acquisitive prescription of real property is the system which is protecting the rightful person who gains rights substantially but cannot prove it. Namely, if the fact keeps on going for a long time, it would be easy to be disappeared the evidence of the relations of just rights so far. So the system of acquisitive prescription of real property makes the rightful person protect from that kinds of difficulty of proof. By the way, the current law is not clear. In case someone squats with malice or even the area of the dealing real property is over it of the register, current law has admitted the acquisitive prescription. It makes the rightful person sacrificed wrongfully. Under the property rights, it limited unfairly disposition rights that are about the personal usefulness and object of the property rights that is the core of substantial essence. Therefore Article 245, Clause 1 of Civil Law has the violation of the constitution because of essential violation of the private ownership of property. So it should be that only person who has possessed the real estate by the just right can get the acquisitive prescription.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 序 論
• Ⅱ. 不動産占有取得時效制度의 理論的 接近
• Ⅲ. 不動産占有取得時效制度의 實務的 接近
• Ⅳ. 結 論
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 권영성, "헌법학원론" 법문사 2000

2 김철수, "헌법학개론" 박영사 2000

3 정하중, "헌법재판소의 판례에 있어서 재산권보장" 헌법재판소 9 : 1998

4 박평준, "헌법상 재산권보장의 이론" 아세아 ․ 태평양공법학회 6 : 1999

5 정종섭, "헌법과 기본권" 박영사 2010

6 허 영, "한국헌법론" 박영사 2006

7 문홍주, "한국헌법" 해엄사 1987

8 이부하, "재산권의 존속보장과 재산권에 관한 법이론 - 경계이론과 분리이론의 비교고찰을 중심으로" 한국비교공법학회 9 (9): 331-351, 2008

9 이준일, "재산권에 관한 법이론적 이해 - 규칙/원칙 모델(rule/principle model)을 중심으로" 한국비교공법학회 7 (7): 209-242, 2006

10 이재홍, "재산권보장의 헌법적 의미" 민사판례연구회 13 : 1991

11 김점순, "시효제도의 효과에 관한 비교법적ㆍ비판적 고찰" 법조협회 23 : 1974

12 김주원, "부동산점유취득시효제도와 부동산매매" 서울지방변호사회 6 : 1993

13 김형배, "민법학강의" 신조사 2009

14 김용한, "민법총칙론" 박영사 1997

15 이은영, "민법총칙" 박영사 2009

16 이영준, "민법총칙" 박영사 2007

17 최명구, "민법총칙" 법문사 2009

18 소성규, "민법총칙" 법률시대 2001

19 김준호, "민법총칙" 법문사 2008

20 김상용, "민법총칙" 화산미디어 2009

21 곽윤직, "민법총칙" 박영사 2007

22 고상용, "민법총칙" 법문사 2003

23 곽윤직, "민법주해Ⅴ" 박영사 1992

24 지원림, "민법강의" 홍문사 2010