구분소유적 공유의 성립 - 대법원 2012. 4. 26. 선고2010다6611판결 - = The establishment of the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Supreme Court pronounced the following judgment, No. 2010 다 6611, on April 26, 2012.
“In case that a co-owner of a single parcel, who have relationship with the state as the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership about the parcel, was experienced the expropriation of the parcel by the state, followed by execution of his/her repurchase right of the parcel thereafter, the repurchased object is assumed as the ownership of a certain portion of the identical parcel which had been expropriated, unless other agreement concluded among the interested parties, but is not considered as the co-owned share of the single parcel."However, the position of Supreme Court may be reconsidered for following aspects.
First, the repurchase of the share in relation of the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership needs to be reviewed. For the case of subject judgment, the location and area of the land were not clearly distinguished during the period of repurchase despite of restrictions such as registration presumption power, but the subject land were revealed to be used as apartment site or convenient or supplementary facility in the compromise protocol. Therefore, it is not clear that any object land of repurchase can be defined by execution of repurchase right and that the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership agreement at the time of exchange can be maintained. The Supreme Court judgment only confirmed that the characteristic of purchase by execution of the repurchase right according to Special Measure Order is the identical with the purchase in the jurisdictional terms as the grounds. However, the grounds for repurchase right and the intention of repurchase are discriminated, and the repurchase right itself does not include the agreement of subject definition. Moreover, the judgment details are not aligned with the compromise protocol. Therefore, the requirement of the meaningful co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership and relevant discussions need to be allowed for disposition of such de facto partition ownership among co-owners de facto partition ownership.
Second consideration is the expropriation of share in relation of the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership and the settlement of such de facto partition ownership relations. In the subject judgment case, the state possessed the land in dispute by itself by expropriating its share of the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership.
Though the subject judgment does not clearly mention its disposition, it seems that the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership is not resolved in connection with the following repurchase. However, if the name of registration is important, it is reasonable to assume that the de facto partition ownership is disposed when the registration is expired while it is possessed by single partitioned owner. Basically, intentions of interested parties and the requirements of the registration is expired while it is possessed by single partitioned owner should persist to maintain such the registration is expired while it is possessed by single partitioned owner in the courses of expropriation and repurchase right.
Third, the de facto partition ownership agreement among interested parties is acknowledged since the provisional parting line is defined in the drawing according to the parting survey after acquiring the possession rights by the unilateral co-owner in the first trial judgment. The co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership is not available unless a certain portion of shared land is occupied or used, though the agreement of partition ownership is recognized since the partition agreement is hard to be accepted after repurchase. Supreme Court itself accepts the judgment of lower court about the exchange contract. In the subject judgment case, the partition agreement of common possession influences the partition ownership agreement in the exchange ...

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박경호, "환지와 관련된 권리관계" 광주지방법원 1999

2 박균성, "행정법론 Ⅱ" 박영사 2007

3 김남진, "행정법 Ⅱ" 법문사 2001

4 김기선, "한국물권법" 법문사 1985

5 박성철, "토지의 일부를 특정매수하고 편의상 그 토지전체에 대한 공유지분이전등기를 한경우와 명의신탁관계" 법원행정처 (11) : 1989

6 서정우, "토지의 구분소유적 공유 : 1필의 토지 중 특정일부를 매수하고 공유등기를 한 때의 법률관계" 법원행정처 4 : 1973

7 민병훈, "토지의 구분소유관계에 관한 판례이론, In 사법연수생 논문집(16기)" 1986

8 박윤흔, "최신행정법강의(하)" 박영사 2004

9 권오창, "주석민법[3]: 물권(2)" 한국사법행정학회 2000

10 김도창, "일반행정법론(상)" 청운사 1992

11 석종현, "일반행정법(하)" 삼영사 2005

12 박경호, "소수지분권자의 공유물보존행위" 광주지방법원 1996

13 이영준, "새로운 체계에 의한 한국민법론 [물권편]" 박영사 2004

14 김형배, "민법강의(제3판)" 신조사 2003

15 지원림, "민법강의" 홍문사 2003

16 곽윤직, "물권법 [민법강의Ⅱ]" 박영사 1999

17 곽윤직, "물권법" 박영사 2006

18 고상룡, "물권법" 법문사 2002

19 박영규, "구분소유적 공유이론 비판" 서울시립대법률행정연구소 (12) : 2004

20 배명이, "구분소유적 공유의 법적 구조에 관한 연구" 경상대학교 대학원 2009

21 김병두, "구분소유적 공유의 법리 소고 -명의신탁을 중심으로" (창간) : 2008

22 김일룡, "구분소유적 공유의 법리" 한양법학회 10 : 1999

23 배병일, "구분소유적 공유의 개념과 법적 성질" 법학연구소 18 (18): 207-232, 2006

24 김영란, "구분소유적 공유에서 공지분이 생기는 경우 및 명의신탁이 존속하는 경우" 법원행정처 19 (19): 1993

25 김영란, "구분소유적 공유에서 공지분이 생기는 경우 및 명의신탁이 존속하는 경우" 법조협회 (447) : 1993

26 최창렬, "구분소유적 공유법리의 재고" 한국재산법학회 22 (22): 35-74, 2006

27 서정우, "구분소유적 공유관계해소를 위한 명의신탁계약의 해지와 소유권에 기한소유권 이전등기청구권" 박영사 4 : 1982

28 손창환, "구분소유적 공유관계의 성립과 관련된 몇가지 문제점" 광주지방법원 2000

29 최문기, "구분소유적 공유관계와 법정지상권, In 민법판례해설Ⅱ" 경세원 1990

30 배성호, "구분소유적 공유관계에 있어서 공지분의 이론과 명의신탁관계" 10 (10): 2003

31 이윤수, "구분소유적 공유관계에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 대학원 2005

32 김주수, "구분소유적 공유관계 해소를 위한 명의신탁계약의 해지와 소유권에 기한소유권 이전등기청구권, In 민법판례연습 : 물권법" 삼영사 1999

33 권오창, "구분소유적 공유관계" 제주판례연구회 2 : 1999

34 김용덕, "구분소유적 공유 등기에 의한 명의신탁과 저당권" 박영사 ⅩⅩⅤ : 2003

35 홍성재, "구분소유적 공유" 2009

36 배병일, "공지분에 관한 연구" 법조협회 56 (56): 66-93, 2007

37 김영일, "공유자상호간의 공유물의 보존행위" 88 (88): 1988

38 김학동, "공유의 법률관계" 고시연구사 22 (22): 1995

39 배병일, "공유물의 분할" 영남대사화과학 연구소 14 (14): 1995

40 최윤성, "공유물의 관리에 관한 공유자간의 특약이 공유지분의 특정승계인에게 승계되는지 여부" 부산판례연구회 (18) : 2007

41 김소영, "공유물분할의 소에 대하여" 24 : 1993

42 김인수, "공유, 공유물분할과 등기, In 재판자료 44집, 등기에 관한 제문제(하)" 1988

43 권오창, "계약명의신탁의 법률관계에 관한 고찰" 48 (48): 1999

44 鈴木祿彌, "物權法講義" 倉文社 1994

45 舟橋諄一, "物權法" 有斐閣 1960

46 川島武宜, "法社會學における法の存在構造, In 日本の法社會學(法社會學 論爭)" 日本 評論社 1979

47 平井宜雄, "法政策學 [第2版]" 有斐閣 1995

48 內田 貴, "民法 Ⅰ[總則⋅物權總論](第3版)" 東京大學出版會 2005

49 我妻榮, "新訂物權法" 岩波書店 1983

50 石田喜久夫, "新版注釋民法(6) 物權(1)"

51 "我妻⋅有泉 コンメンタ-ル民法" 日本評論社

52 船田享二, "ローマ法 第2卷" 岩波書店

53 Wieling, "Sachenrecht, Band Ⅰ, 2 Aufl." Springer 2006

54 Westermann, "Sachenrecht, 7 Aufl." C.F. Müller 1998

55 Schwab, "Sachenrecht, 31 Aufl." C.H.Beck 2003

56 Wilhelm, "Sachenrecht, 3 Aufl." De Gruyter Recht 2007

57 Manfred Wolf, "Sachenrecht, 20 Aufl." C.H.Beck 2004

58 Wolfgang Brehm, "Sachenrecht, 2. Aufl." Mohr Siebeck 2006

59 Baur, "Sachenrecht, 17 Aufl." C.H.Beck 1999

60 Schellhammer, "Sachenrecht" C.F.Müller 2001

61 Wolff, "Lehrbuch des Sachenrechts, 10. Bearb." 1957

62 Staudinger-Gursky, "Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgegetz und Nebengesetzen" Sellier - de Gruyter

63 Erman, "Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, 11 Aufl." Aschendorff Rechtsverlag 2004

64 Jauering, "Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Kommentar, 12. Aufl." C.H.Beck 2007

65 Dauner-Lieb, "Anwaltkommentar BGB, Band 3" DeutscherAnwaltVerlag 2004