宗中과 宗中財産의 法理構成에 관한 硏究 = A Study on the Legal Theory related to the Families of the Same Clan and its Property

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The clan is one of important systems, which has long been practiced by common law in the area of Korean indigenous law.
Korean society has achieved rapid economic growth since the 1970s, and this promoted industrialization and urbanization as well as consequent spread of individualism, gender equality, low birth rate, and the decline of preference for sons and the concept of family succession. In this situation, discrimination between daughters and sons has been fading away and the memorial service system, which has been observed strictly in the past, has been changed. What is more, as cremation is spread for efficient land use, graves are built less and this is undermining the base for the existence of clans. Moreover, many clans are giving women the status of a clan member contrary to traditional clan operation centering on the male line based on Confucianism.
Particularly with the abolition of the family head system by the Civil Code amended in March 31, 2005, now a child can follow the mother?fs family name and origin through agreement between the parents. In addition, expecting inconveniences from the disagreement of family name between the stepfather and his stepchildren resulting from the mother?fs divorce and remarriage, now it is allowed for such children to change their family name and origin. Accordingly, for the principle of father?fs family name and origin (Article 781?]1), which has been continued for thousands of years, the amended law acknowledges exceptions by allowing a child to have the mother?fs family name and origin as his/her family name and origin or to change the family name and origin (Article 781?]1, Article 781?]2). This legislation has a considerable effect on clans, which have been acknowledged and regulated by traditional common laws, and even the Supreme Court is not able to maintain the effect of traditional common laws or judicial cases.
From the viewpoint of the Korean Civil Code, a clan is a corporation without status for a juristic person. Besides the Civil Code, however, its subjectivity of right (capacity for being a party or capacity for registration) is regulated by the Civil Procedure Act and the Registration of Real Estate Act (Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 30 of the Registration of Real Estate Act). Concerning the property relation, nevertheless, the Civil Code regulates only for ownership, defining the ownership relation of a corporation without status for a juristic person as collective ownership(Article 275 of the Civil Code), and does not regulate other relations like responsibility relation direct?Tly.
In this way, as corporations without status for a juristic person are not regulated directly, legal relation surrounding such corporations are very complicated theoretically as well as practically. In particular, associations like clans that pursue the members?f mental benefits such as assistance and service, friendship, and mutual aid are not either profit?]making corporations or public service corporations, and therefore, they cannot be a corporation either under the Commercial Law or under the Civil Code. What are particularly problematic in the legal relation of clans are the imputation of properties, disclosure method, the representative?fs responsibility, etc. Moreover, relations derived from the legal relation of corporations without status for a juristic person such as the relation between corporations and unincorporated associations, the relation between corporations and cooperatives, and the relation between corporations or unincorporated associations and trusts contain many theoretical problems. Organizations like clans are called intermediate corporations, and problems involving them should be resolved in the area of the Corporations Act (the Associations Act). Because intermediate organizations like clans cannot acquire the status for a juristic person in principle, however, this problem should be solved legislatively by amending the Ordinary Corporations Act through the Intermediate Corporations Act. Like common?]law marriage, on the other hand, a clan cannot acquire the status for a juristic person as a corporation but it has an entity like a corporation, and considering this, the theory of corporation without status for a juristic person should be reexamined together with the theory of common?]law marriage.
The Korean Civil Code does not include any regulation on corporations without status for a juristic person except its definition of the ownership relation of such corporations as collective ownership(Article 275). With regard to this, however, most of academic theories and judicial cases on corporations without status for a juristic person suggest that such organizations are not registered as a corporation but have entity as a corporation and therefore they should be subject to regulations on incorporated associations rather than to regulations on cooperatives, and among regulations on incorporated associations in the Civil Code, those who do not premise the status for a juristic person should be applied analogically.
Accordingly, today clan exists as one of associations without status for a juristic person by law and is going through rapid changes, but still it is a highly influential organization as a part of the traditional lifestyle of our society. Therefore, we need to examine whether they are existing at present and will continue to exist in the future.
This study was conducted from the question of whether problems related to clans and clan properties can be solved harmoniously in the middle of social evolution and in a way of respecting traditional customs.
Previous studies have suggested clan?]related legislative theories and the future of clans based on the original meaning of clans, related legal properties, foundation and termination, composition, the development of quasi?]clans, the original meaning of quasi?]clans, and the necessity for distinguishing between clans and quasi?]clans. Therefore, they have not made sufficient empirical discussion on the establishment and change of common laws related to clans, the survey of Korean common laws and clan customs during the period under the rule of Japanese imperialism, the transformation of clan customs by Japan, etc.
This study hypothesized that a clan is a corporation without status for a juristic person, and limited its scope to the analysis and review of common laws related to clans centering on problems surrounding clans and the formation of legal principles for resolving disputes over clan properties. For this, we performed interpretive analysis and review, and legislative analysis and review for overcoming the limitations of the interpretive approach. Accordingly, by the scope of this study, this paper is structured as follows.
Chapter I is the introduction, presenting problems related to the topic of this study and research methods through analyzing the background of this study and research trends.
Chapter II is about common laws related to clans and clan properties, analyzing the formation, development and contents of clan customs, and examining how Japan viewed clan customs and how clan customs were transformed by Japan using judicial cases and theories during the period under the rule of Japanese imperialism. Based on these analyses, we studied requirements for the constitution of clans and quasi?]clans under the current laws and the formation of clan properties.
Chapter III is about legal principles related to clan properties, analyzing previous theories and judicial cases to see how clan properties are formed and imputed, and examining the responsibility of clan members and representatives in the disposal of clan properties and capacity for being a party and capacity of registration in lawsuits over clan properties. What is more, this chapter clarified the imputation and disposal of clan properties by analyzing how properties are imputed by corporations without status for a juristic person other than clans. In this course, we discussed issues in the enforcement of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder?fs Name, focusing on the theory of real estate title trust introduced and established by Japan.
Based on the results of analyses and reviews in Chapter II and III, Chapter IV reviewed existing legislative theories related to the foundation of incorporated associations and those on clans in order to overcome the limitations of the interpretive approach in solving legal problems related to clans, and then analyzed and reviewed the draft of amendment on corporations made during the amendment of the Civil Code (Property Part) in progress, and through these, this chapter suggested a special act on clans as a legislative solution. For this, we looked for a solution through analyzing social evolution, changes in clan customs, problems in clan properties nominal trust, etc.
Chapter V is the conclusion, summarizing the previous discussions based on the problems suggested in this study and suggesting legislative supplementations and tasks for future research with regard to contents analyzed and reviewed in Chapter IV. In particular, this chapter suggested a number of considerations for the legislation of ?gThe Special Act on Clans and Clan Properties?h for solving these legislative problems.
a) With regard to the defining of clan, the objectives of a clan are the preservation of common ancestors?f graves, memorial services, and friendship among clan members as in clans in the original sense. With regard to clan members, however, they should be adults among the descendents of the common ancestors. It was traditionally ?eadult men,?f but was changed to ?eadults?f in order to include both adult men and women. In addition, with regard to whether a clan should be limited to ?ea natural tribal group,?f it is considered not necessary to confine it to a natural group as examined on the relation between clans and quasi?]clans.
b) With regard to the registration of clans and their status for a juristic person, it is necessary to induce clans not to avoid registration by stipulating the procedure of clan registration minutely in the special act. Moreover, through clan registration, clans, which have been corporations without status for a juristic person, should be able to acquire the status for a juristic person. In addition, clans with the status for a juristic person should be treated more favorably by law than clans without. That is, clans without the status for a juristic person should be restricted in legal action as the plaintiff, application for registration as a registration right holder, and claim for the payment of deposit, etc. Moreover, clan registration should be made in the area where the clan?fs main office is located. Accordingly, the address of a clan should be the location of its main office. In the acquisition of the status for a juristic person by clan registration, clans should be grouped into large and small ones and different regulations should be applied to each group in terms of registration procedure and supervision by the competent authority. Accordingly, a clan consisting of 8 generations or more of the common ancestor becomes a special clan through registration with permission from the competent authority, and a clan consisting of 7 generations or less of the common ancestor also becomes a special clan through registration with permission from the competent authority. Clans except such special ones, however, become ordinary clans through registration without permission from the competent authority.
c) With regard to restriction on clans?f acquisition of real estate, clans?f real estate acquisition should be limited to lands for graves. That is, clans?f acquisition of real estate is restricted in order to remove the possible causes of disputes over clan properties. Then, what should be done for real estate that has already acquired by clans? As a registered clan acquires the status for a juristic person, such properties are owned solely by the clan. Accordingly, real estate under nominal trust should take ownership transfer registration to the clan for the reason of the termination of nominal trust. Such real estate acquisition by clans should be permitted exceptionally. Then, nominal trust real estate of clan properties under the Real Estate Real Name Act is all resolved, and at the same time, the rule prohibiting nominal trust by the Real Estate Real Name Act will be applied as it is.
d) With regard to the foundation procedure and institution, first, permission from the competent authority and registration are required of special clans, the procedure and required documents may be more complicated than those for ordinary clans. Next, as to the institution of clan, special clans should have directors, the chief director and the auditor and regulate the appointment, rights and duties of these positions. Ordinary clans have the general clan meeting and executives but, as in special clans, the executives include directors, the chief director and the auditor. In addition, in order to have such executives perform their clan?]related jobs sincerely, it is necessary to stipulate penal provisions against clan executives who raise profits from clan properties or help a third party raise profits, and consequently, inflict a loss on the clan, who give or take, demand or promise monetary profits in return for an illegal request related to their job at the general clan meeting, the exercise of voice or voting right, filing a lawsuit, etc.
e) Concerning inspection, supervision, etc. special clans should be inspected and supervised by the competent authority, but ordinary clans may not need that. However, it may be necessary to allow an ordinary clan to become a special clan.
Lastly, clan in Korea is a good social custom transmitted through long history. Accordingly, people will keep the traditional concept that a clan is not only our lifestyle but also a community for preserving the ancestors?f graves, memorial services and friendship among the members. Therefore, problems related to clans should be solved with the object of inheriting and developing national culture, which is one of constitutional ideas. For this reason, in resolving clan?]related issues legislatively, it is considered more desirable to cope with historical and social changes in clans and clan properties by the special act as mentioned above prior to the amendment of the Civil Code and then incorporate such changes in the Civil Code.
Key Word : clan, clan properties, Korean indigenous law, the Civil Code amended in March 31, 2005, the Korean Civil Code, Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 30 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 275 of the Civil Code, corporations without status for a juristic person, The Special Act on Clans and Clan Properties, the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder?fs Name(the Real Estate Real Name Act), the amendment of the Civil Code (Property Part), etc.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 1
• 제1절 연구의 목적 1
• ?T. 연구의 배경 1
• ?U. 문제의 제기 6
• ?V. 연구의 동향 8
• 제2절 연구의 범위와 방법 10
• ?T. 연구의 범위 10
• ?U. 연구의 방법 12
• 제2장 종중과 종중재산에 관한 관습법 14
• 제1절 서 설 14
• 제2절 종중관습의 형성과 변천 15
• ?T. 종종관습의 형성 : 기원 15
• ?U. 종중관습의 변천 17
• ?V. 종중관습의 내용 19
• 1. 종중의 형성 23
• 2. 종중의 구성단위와 조직 23
• 3. 종중의 공동생활의 범위 24
• 4. 종중재산의 형성과 소유 24
• ?W. 결 어 26
• 제3절 일제의 한국관습법조사사업과 ?u조선민사령?v의 시행에 의한 종중관습의 변용 26
• ?T. 개 관 26
• ?U. 일제의 한국관습법조사사업과 종중관습 28
• 1. ?u관습조사보고서?v와 종중관습 28
• 2. ?u민사관습회답휘집?v과 종중관습 31
• ?V. 일제의 ?u조선민사령?v의 시행에 의한 종중관습의 변용 35
• 1. 종중재산에 관한 종중관습의 단계적 변용 35
• (1) 초기의 법적구성: 공유관계로서의 종중재산 36
• (2) 수정된 법적구성: 총유론의 도입과 합유관계로서의 종중재산 37
• (3) 종중재산의 공시와 조선부동산등기령의 개정 38
• 2. 판례에 의한 변용 39
• (1) 종중과 종중재산 39
• (2) 조선고등법원판결 등에 의한 변용 41
• 3. 학설에 의한 변용: 명의신탁이론의 태동 46
• (1) 공유의 법률관계와 종중분쟁 46
• (2) 종중의 권리주체성 부인 47
• (3) 종중재산의 신고 또는 등기 49
• (4) ?u조선부동산등기령?v의 시행과 분쟁 50
• 4. 합유의 법률관계와 ?u조선부동산등기령?v의 개정 54
• (1) 분쟁상황의 변천과 논의 54
• (2) 판례의 변경 56
• (3) ?u조선부동산등기령?v의 개정 62
• 제4절 현행법 아래에서의 종중과 유사종중의 검토 63
• ?T. 종중 63
• 1. 개관 : 인적결합으로서의 종중 63
• 2. 법인격 없는 사단으로서의 종중 65
• (1) 법인격 없는 사단의 발생원인 65
• (2) 법인격 없는 사단의 성립요건 66
• 1) 현행법에서 법인격 없는 사단의 성립요건 66
• 2) 법인격 없는 사단으로서 종중의 성립요건 68
• (3) 법인격 없는 사단의 법률관계 74
• 1) 내부적 법률관계 75
• 2) 외부적 법률관계 76
• 3. 종중의 종류 81
• (1) 대종중과 소종중 81
• (2) 종중과 문중 83
• ?U. 유사종중(類???@??) 84
• 1. 개 관 : 인위적 종족단체로서의 종중 84
• 2. 유사종중의 성립요건 87
• (1) 유사종중의 발생원인 87
• (2) 유사종중의 유형과 성립 : 판례의 태도 89
• 1) 유사종중의 목적과 종중원 92
• 2) 특정한 범위의 구성원 102
• 3) 조직행위 102
• 4) 규 약 103
• 3. 유사종중의 기관 104
• (1) 종중총회 104
• (2) 대표자 104
• 4. 재산의 소유관계 105
• 5. 유사종중의 종중원에 대한 징계 105
• 6. 유사종중의 분열 106
• 7. 소 결 107
• ?V. 종중원의 자격과 종중의 구성에 관한 검토 110
• 1. 종중원의 자격 110
• (1) 종중원 110
• (2) 민법의 개정과 종중원 112
• 2. 종중의 구성 115
• (1) 종중의 임원 115
• 1) 종장(?@??)ㆍ문장(????) 115
• 2) 종중의 대표자 116
• 3) 종손(?@??) 117
• (2) 종회(?@??) 118
• 1) 종회원 118
• 2) 종중원 및 종회원에 대한 징계 120
• 3) 종회의 소집절차 124
• 4) 종회의 결의방법 125
• (3) 종중규약(종약) 126
• (4) 종약소(?@????) 128
• 제5절 결 어 129
• 제3장 종중재산의 법리 구성 : 부동산명의신탁이론을 중심으로 132
• 제1절 서 설 132
• 제2절 종중재산의 형성과 귀속 133
• ?T. 종중재산의 형성 133
• 1. 종중재산의 의의 133
• 2. 종중재산의 기원 135
• 3. 종중재산 형성의 유형 136
• (1) 선조의 1인 또는 상속인이 단독으로 설정하는 경우 137
• (2) 종중원의 공동출연에 의하여 설정하는 경우 138
• (3) 기타의 방법으로 설정하는 경우 138
• 4. 종중재산의 권리주체 139
• (1) 사단성 139
• (2) 종중재산의 총유성 140
• (3) 종중재산의 권리주체로서 종중원 141
• 5. 종중재산의 공시(등기) 144
• (1) 1930년 ?u조선부동산등기령?v 개정 이전의 등기방법 145
• (2) 1930년 ?u조선부동산등기령?v 개정 이후의 등기방법 148
• (3) 현행 ?u부동산등기법?v에서의 등기방법 149
• ?U. 종중재산의 귀속 151
• 1. 종중재산의 귀속에 관한 법리구성 151
• (1) 학 설 151
• (2) 판 례 155
• 1) 종중재산을 공유의 대상으로 본 경우 158
• 2) 종중재산을 합유의 대상이라고 본 경우 159
• 3) 종중재산을 총유의 대상이라고 본 경우 160
• (3) 소 결 164
• 2. 종중재산의 명의신탁적 귀속 166
• 제3절 명의신탁이론의 생성과 전개 169
• ?T. 명의신탁의 생성배경 169
• ?U. 명의신탁에 유사한 외국 및 우리나라의 제도 : 신탁제도를 중심으로 171
• 1. 로마법 171
• 2. 게르만법 172
• 3. 프랑스법 174
• 4. 영미법 175
• 5. 우리나라 176
• 6. 검토 182
• ?V. 명의신탁의 법률관계 184
• 1. 명의신탁의 성립 : 명의신탁약정과 등기 184
• 2. 명의신탁의 효력 188
• 3. 명의신탁의 법률관계 189
• (1) 대내적 관계 189
• (2) 대외적 관계 191
• 1) 신탁자의 제3자에 대한 소유권의 행사 196
• 2) 신탁자의 신탁재산처분 197
• 3) 수탁자의 신탁재산처분 198
• 4) 일반 채권자들과의 관계 200
• ?W. 명의신탁의 해지 202
• 1. 해지권자 202
• 2. 해지의 효과 203
• (1) 학 설 203
• (2) 판 례 205
• (3) 신탁자의 권리회복 206
• ?X. 명의신탁의 금지 207
• 1. 명의신탁의 금지의 범위와 원칙 207
• 2. 예 외 208
• (1) 규정내용 208
• (2) 예외의 허용범위 208
• ?Y. 명의신탁에 관한 판례 210
• 1. 종중재산에 관한 명의신탁 210
• 2. 상호명의신탁 211
• 3. 공동명의신탁 217
• 4. 강행법규위반의 명의신탁 219
• 5. 미등기부동산의 경우 223
• 6. 이중명의신탁의 경우 224
• 제4절 종중재산의 관리·처분과 그에 대한 책임 225
• ?T. 종중재산의 공시방법과 관리 225
• 1. 종중재산의 공시방법 225
• 2. 종중재산의 관리 226
• (1) 위토의 관리 228
• (2) 관리방법 228
• (3) 보존방법 230
• 2. 종중원 및 대표자의 책임 231
• (1) 종중원의 책임 231
• (2) 대표자의 책임 234
• ?U. 종중재산의 소송관계 : 소송당사자능력과 등기능력을 중심으로 236
• 1. 문제점 236
• 2. 종중재산소송의 당사자능력 238
• 3. 종중의 등기능력 246
• 제5절 결 어 250
• 제4장 종중에 관한 입법론의 검토 253
• 제1절 서 설 253
• 제2절 종래의 입법론 254
• ?T. 사단법인의 설립에 관한 입법론 254
• 1. 종중 이외의 법인격 없는 사단의 현황 254
• (1) 교회와 교회재산 254
• (2) 사찰과 사찰재산 262
• (3) 어촌계와 어촌계재산 264
• (4) 동ㆍ리와 동ㆍ리 재산 268
• (5) 아파트 주민단체와 재산 269
• 2. 문제점 270
• 3. 사회진화와 종중관습의 변화 273
• (1) 봉제사(???侶J)의 문제 274
• (2) 분묘수호(????????)의 문제 275
• (3) 친목도모(?e?r?ㅶ?)의 문제 276
• 4. 고유한 의미의 종중에서 유사종중으로 변화 277
• 5. 소 결 278
• ?U. 종중에 관한 입법론 279
• 1. 개 관 279
• 2. 종중재산에 대한 문제의 제기 280
• (1) 분묘기지 소유권자의 문제 280
• (2) 묘산(???R, ???{林??)과 위토(???y)의 문제 282
• (3) 종중재산 명의신탁의 문제 282
• (4) 소 결 284
• 3. 종중에 관한 기존의 입법론 285
• (1) 입법론의 내용 285
• (2) 입법론에 대한 검토 289
• 4. 소 결 291
• 제3절 법인에 관한 개정시안의 입법론 292
• ?T. 개 관 292
• ?U. 제1차 민법개정법률안과 법인에 관한 개정안 293
• 1. 개정경과 293
• 2. 개정법률안의 내용 293
• (1) 개정법률안 293
• (2) 개정이유 293
• (3) 토론의견 294
• (4) 개정심의경과 295
• ?V. 제2차 민법개정법률안과 법인에 관한 개정시안 299
• 1. 개 관 299
• 2. 개정시안의 내용 300
• (1) 개정시안 300
• (2) 개정이유 300
• 3. 개정시안에 관한 논의 305
• (1) 민법개정위원회에서의 개정시안에 대한 논의 305
• (2) 민법의 관점에서 본 민법개정안의 법인제도: 개정시안 제39조의2 검토 306
• (3) 상법의 관점에서 본 민법개정안의 법인제도: 개정시안 제39조의2 검토 307
• ?W. 소 결 313
• 제4절 결 어 314
• 제5장 결 론 317
• [부록1] 325
• [부록2] 343
• 참고문헌 346
• Abstract 355