유치권의 성립요건으로서 물건과 채권간의 견련성 = A Study about Correlation between Bonds and Things as an Essential Condition of the Lien

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

1. The article 320 of Korean civil law provided 「bond concerned about the things」, which was from the article 295 of Japan civil law. This Japan Civil Law that had been influenced by French Civil Law acknowledged lien as real rights granted by way of security.
Nevertheless, in terms of correlation between bonds and things, we acknowledged the article 273 of German civil law which recognized bond-like right of payment denial. Duality theory which was predominant this time admits ‘① bond generated by object itself’ and ‘② bond generated by the right of return claim of object or legal and factional relations.’ (For your reference, ‘①’ falls within the article 273-2 of German civil law, and ‘②’ falls under the article 273-1 of German civil law.
Article 273 of German Civil Law provides a lien as ‘bond-like right of payment denial’, and is not binding upon the third party based on a real right of things. However, our Korean Civil Law has a binding effect on the third party since we acknowledged the provision regarding lien as a real right of things. Thus, some problems would occur if we bring the viewpoint of German Civil Law into the ours as the standard of judgment of the conditions of lien, since we recognize a lien as a real right, which have an absolute binding effect upon third parties.
2. In terms of the lien as the statutory real right granted by way of security under Korean Civil Law, considering that it involves possession of the object until the debt is paid where there is no value in exchange, and is not regulated under the Law of Reality where superiority and inferiority are determined by the order of the completion of real rights, the standard of judgment of the conditions of lien should be carefully determined through comparative study of other legal principles and work of the interest balancing method.
According to that fact, the ‘②’ mentioned above has problems as a general standard for the conditions of lien since it has many exceptions to the lien, and even in case of accepting that idea, it is less likely to admit the second theory since it infringes on another mortgagee’s right to be paid and the safety of business. Furthermore, it also could be achieved through the right of objection based on performance at the same time.
Considering the lien having special characteristics and the fact that the third party (a possessor or a mortgagee) should not be applied against,judging the correlations between bonds and a thing as the conditions of lien, range of bonds should be limited to ‘①, bond generated by object itself.’ Further, in terms of the right to demand compensation based on the thing itself, the possessor should be liable for the wrongful acts.
3. In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court provided two standards for the conditions of lien under the first theory ‘①’ as the predominant opinion in this issue. Facts are as follows. C entered into a subcontract with B on window construction of apartment houses which provide 56 residents. The money C spent on has been occurred from the construction of the apartment houses, thus, C could put a lien on that. And when C insists a claim of lien while possessing D’s house, it would be resolved by applying the principle of indivisibility.
Therefore, using the second standard ‘② bond generated by the right of return claim of object or legal and factional relations’ to judge the conditions of lien is unnecessary and does not have actual profits. Thus, it is not proper to set the second opinion as a standard for judging the conditions of lien.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 古積健三郞, "留置權の射程および性質に關する一考察" 中央大學 法學會 111 (111): 2004

2 이영준, "한국민법론(물권편)(신정2판)" 박영사 2004

3 김기선, "한국물권법(전정판)" 법문사 1985

4 남궁술, "프랑스 민법전의 유치권에 관한 연구 - 개정 담보법(2006)의 내용을 중심으로 -" 한국민사법학회 49 (49): 49-80, 2010

5 문광섭, "유치권의 피담보채권의 범위 - 채권과 물건 간의 견련관계 및 유치권의 불가분성과 관련하여 -" (71) : 2007

6 양창수, "유치권의 성립요건으로서의 견련관계(Ⅱ)" 1986

7 양창수, "유치권의 성립요건으로서의 견련관계(Ⅰ)" 1986

8 신국미, "유치권의 성립요건으로서 물권과 채권간의 견련관계" 한국재산법학회 21 (21): 127-166, 2004

9 공순진, "유치권의 성립요건으로서 견련성" 21 : 2004

10 박영목, "유치권의 성립요건과 효력범위 -수급인의 유치권을 중심으로 -" 안암법학회 (27) : 231-264, 2008

11 엄동섭, "유치권의 성립요건 - 견련성" 2005

12 남윤봉, "유치권의 견련관계에 관한 일고찰" 한양법학회 (21) : 242-259, 2007

13 최명구, "유치권과 저당권의 경합" 한국민사법학회 (42) : 709-742, 2008

14 박용석, "유치권 성립요건으로서의 견련성에 관하여" 법학연구소 48 (48): 219-242, 2008

15 이상태, "요해 물권법" 법원사 1996

16 박정기, "압류의 처분금지효에 저촉하여 취득한 유치권으로 경매절차의 매수인에게 대항할 수 있는지 여부" 2005

17 이범상, "압류부동산에 대한 유치권행사의 효력" (3557) : 2007

18 명순구, "실록 대한민국민법 2" 法文社 2010

19 송덕수, "신민법강의(제2판)" 박영사 2009

20 김현태, "신물권법(하)" 일조각 1982

21 방순원, "신물권법(전)" 일한도서출판사 1960

22 오시영, "부동산유치권의 성립과 대항력의 구별" 한국민사법학회 (38) : 211-250, 2007

23 오시영, "부동산 유치권 강제집행에 대한 문제점과 입법론적 고찰" 한국토지법학회 23 (23): 213-254, 2007

24 곽윤직, "민법주해 물권(3)" 박영사

25 법제사법위원회, "민법안심의록(상)"

26 高木多喜男, "민법강의 3 담보물권(개정판)" 有斐閣 1983

27 이동진, "물권적 유치권의 정당성과 그 한계" 한국민사법학회 49 (49): 49-88, 2010

28 김용한, "물권법론(재전정판)" 박영사 1993

29 윤철홍, "물권법강의" 박영사 1998

30 김증한, "물권법(제9판)" 박영사 1997

31 곽윤직, "물권법(제7판)" 박영사 2005

32 고상룡, "물권법" 법문사 2001

33 이은영, "물권법" 박영사 1998

34 김상용, "물권법" 화산미디어 2009

35 이진기, "담보물권으로서 유치권-유치권의 비판적 해석-" 1998

36 我妻榮, "담보물권법(민법강의 Ⅲ)" 동경 岩波書店 1936

37 박진근, "건축계약상 수급인의 유치권제한" 한국민사법학회 (39-1) : 317-343, 2007

38 이치영, "건물에 대한 유치권의 성립과 대지와의 관계 In 민법판례해설 II" 경세원 1994

39 강태성, "건물수리비채권을 담보하는 건물유치권의 성립 여부 및 그 유치권의 효력은 그 건물의 대지에도 미치는가?" (410) : 2006

40 荒木新五, "競売による買受人に対する留置権主張の可否" (1150) : 2004

41 平井一雄, "留置権の要件である牽連性の判断基準 , 東京高決14年6月６日" 21 (21): 2003

42 古積健三朗, "留置権の射程および性質に関する一考察" 中央大学法学会 111 : 2004

43 清水元, "留置権における牽連性" 日本評論社 80 (80): 2008

44 林良平, "注釋民法(8)" 22-,

45 法務省民事局參事官室, "擔保⋅執行法制の見直しに關する要綱中間試案補足說明" (735) : 2002

46 谷口園惠, "擔保⋅執行法制の見直した關する要綱中間試案 に對する各界意見の紹介" (1651) : 2002

47 石田穣, "担保物権法" 信山社 2010

48 추신영, "假裝留置權의 進入制限을 위한 立法的 考察" 한국민사법학회 (44) : 351-383, 2009

49 신국미, "「유치권자에 의한 경매(민법 제322조)」에 관한 의문" 한국재산법학회 25 (25): 73-108, 2008

50 Dieter Medicus, "Schuldrecht Ⅰ Allgemeiner Teil, 17. Aufl" 2006

51 Max Kaser, "Römisches Privatrecht, 15. Aufl" 1989

52 MünchKomm, "Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 2, 5. Aufl" 241-432, 2007

53 Ph.Malaurie, "Les sûretés, La publicité foncière, 4e éd." Defrénois 2009

54 Keller, "Das Zurückbehaltungsrecht nach § 273 BGB"

55 Corrado Rampini, "Basler Komm. Zivilgesetzbuch Ⅱ, 3. Aufl" 1983