51 0

등기청구권과 침해부당이득: 새로운 법리의 형성과정에 관한 고찰

Title
등기청구권과 침해부당이득: 새로운 법리의 형성과정에 관한 고찰
Other Titles
An Obligation to Register in the Unmovable Property Registry as a Duty to Reverse Unjust Enrichment: A Study on the Process of How a New Rule Has Been Shaped in the Supreme Court
Author
제철웅
Keywords
부당이득 ; 채권자취소권 ; 채권자대위권 ; 등기청구권 ; 사해행위; Unjust Enrichment ; Revocation of a Fraudulent Transaction by a Debtor ; Right to Enforce Registration ; Fraudulent Transaction
Issue Date
2020-12
Publisher
한국민사법학회
Citation
민사법학, v. 93, Page. 281-323
Abstract
이 논문은 등기청구권(말소등기청구권 또는 이전등기청구권)의 인정과 관련한 일련의 대법원 판결을 침해부당이득의 사안 유형에 포섭할 수 있는지에 관한 문제를 다룬다. 등기청구권에는 물권적 청구권과 채권적 청구권이있는데, 우리 대법원 판결례 중에는 계약관계 또는 여타의 채권관계에서 비롯된 채권적 권리를 근거로 그 채권관계의 상대방이 아닌 제3자, 즉 원인무효 등기명의자에게 등기말소 또는 등기이전을 청구하는 것을 인정하는 경우가 있다. 이런 권리의 인정은 일견 채권에 제3자적 효력을 인정하는 것과유사하기 때문에 채권적 권리의 통상의 효과와는 다르기 때문에, 그 권리의인정근거가 무엇인지가 해명될 필요가 있다. 이 논문은 이러한 등기청구권을 당해 권리자에게 할당된 채권적 권리 또는 채권적 지위의 침해를 회복하기 위해 인정되는 것으로 이해할 수 있다면, 이를 부당이득반환청구권, 특히채권적 권리 또는 채권적 지위의 침해로 인한 부당이득반환청구권으로 성격규정할 수 있음을 증명하기 위한 목적으로 연구되었다. 이 연구는 최근 논란이 많이 된 대법원 2017. 3. 9. 선고 2015다217980 판결을 연구하면서 이런 유형의 등기청구권은 비단 위의 사안에 한정되지 않고 그 밖의 사안에서도 이와 유사한 결론을 인정하는 판결이 있음을 밝힌다. 연구의 결과 사해행위취소권의 행사로 소유권이전등기가 말소된 후 소유권등기를 회복한 채무자가 그 부동산을 처분하고 제3자에게 소유권이전등기를마쳐준 경우 취소채권자 또는 민법 제407조의 채권자가 그 등기의 말소를청구할 채권적 등기청구권을 침해부당이득반환청구권으로 성격규정 지을 수있다고 주장한다. 이 연구를 통해 계약관계나 사전적 채권관계 없는 당사자사이에 부당이득반환관계를 인정한 일련의 대법원 판결을 해석론적으로 재조명하고 있다. This paper deals with a series of Korean Supreme Court decisions related to the obligation to register in the unmovable property registry. Whereas the obligation to such a r egistration i s classified i n to two k inds o f duty, n amely pre-existent obligatory and proprietary duty, some Supreme Court decisions have conferred such an obligation and a corresponding right on parties who have not yet engaged in a pre-existent either obligatory or a proprietary relationship in the case where the corresponding right holder has a right against a third party to request performance and the debtor keeps invalid registration which hampers the realization of a third party’s obligation. Since conferring such an obligation on a party against the other party who has not yet engaged in a pre-existent legal relationship with the named debtor means acknowledging a kind of third party effect to the other party’s obligatory right to the third party, the related Supreme Court decisions have to be analysed to either back up or criticize. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain whether the obligation to register in the unmovable property registry is to be characterized as a duty by the debtor to reverse unjust en richment, i f the debtor w ho k eeps i n valid registration hampers t he r ealization of the creditor’s obligatory right against the third party without any legal justification and the obligation is the only way to rescue the creditor’s hampered obligatory right. This research was triggered by the controversial Supreme Court decision dated on 9th March 2017, 2015DA21798 among civil law scholars. But this paper reveals there have been many other Supreme Court decisions of the same characterization This paper argues that either creditors who have revoked a fraudulent transaction by a debtor or other creditors who can benefit from the revocation and restoration in accordance with Article 407 of Korean Civil Code are eligible to request any third party who keeps invalid registration by virtue of an invalid transaction with the said debtor holding an apparent right caused by revocation and restoration to delete invalid registration in the unmovable property registry to the effect that the restored property shall be subject to seizure by creditors in accordance with Article 407 of Korean Civil Code and that such an obligation by the debtor with invalid registration is to be deemed as a duty to reverse unjust enrichment, otherwise the creditors right which is allocated and guaranteed by that provision cannot be realized. In addition, this paper critically analyzed other Supreme Court decisions, which conferred an obligation to reverse unjust enrichment on a party who has not yet engaged in pre-existent either obligatory or proprietary relationship against the other party who has an obligatory right against a third party, and which cannot be classified as a unjust en richment case. As a r esult, t his paper seeks to c on tribute to t he c larification of the characterization of unjust enrichment in Korean law.
URI
https://scholar.dkyobobook.co.kr/searchExtDetail.laf?barcode=4050028223620&vendorGb=05&academyCd=20796https://repository.hanyang.ac.kr/handle/20.500.11754/173041
ISSN
1226-5004
DOI
10.52554/kjcl.2020.93.281
Appears in Collections:
ETC[S] > 연구정보
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

BROWSE