유치권과 저당권의 경합 = The competition of a lean and hypothec

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

I study on the problems in case of competition of a lien and hypothec through the concrete examples - in case of a return claim of construction charge, nullity or retraction of a sales contract.
In case of a return claim of construction charge, there are three problems whether or not to recognition a lien of covenantee competition of a lien and hypothec and limits of an obligatory right to be indebted mortgage.
In case of competition of a lien and hypothec, a lien did not have a priority reimbursement right so that hypothec have priority a lien.
Regarding to a lien, a vendee hold a position of trust to reimburse an obligatory right to give to pledge mortgage to a lienor. In case of an auction by a lien, a vendee takes charge of a lien in accordance with a principle of acceptance.
The problem about recognition limits of an obligatory right to be indebted mortgage of a lien is connection between an obligatory right to be indebted mortgage and the object. A theory about that problem is devided a broad sense opinion and a narrow sense opinion. A leading case adopt a broad sense opinion.
Regarding to a broad sense opinion, a mortgagee insist a priority reimbursement right only about real estate, a lienor can receive a priority reimbursement through a claim about a object in point of fact.
In case of nullity or retraction of a sales contract, the problems are whether or not to recognition a lien of covenantee, competition of a lien and hypothec.
A lien is present in case of recognizing relation of a real right work and choosing a broad sense opinion. A leading case also recognizes a lien of a vendee.
In case of nullity or retraction of a sales contract, if a lien is recognized to a vendee, a lienor take a priority reimbursement right in point of fact by a principle of acceptance. And a mortgagee also take a priority reimbursement through to set up hypothec. In result the problem occurs about competition of both parties.
In this case, the effect varies as the time that a lien and hypothec are each concluded. This case has a process - registration for hypothec institution → a sales contract → nullity or retraction of a sales contract. In result a vendee can not antagonize a successful bidder and a vendor alegar basis to come from a lien by a return claim about selling and buying price.
For solving the competition between a lien and hypothec, first, a standard to solve the problem of connection diverts a principle of factor from a principle of effect, second, a registration system is must bring in for making public of a lien, third, to apply a principle of connection is must reappraised, lastly a lien must divide into two - the thing to have a priority reimbursement right and have not a priority reimbursement right. And if a principle of connection apply the former, a principle of extinction apply the latter, a valid conclusion can be drawn.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 藥師寺志光, "留置權論" 三省堂 1935

2 關武志, "留置權の硏究" 信山社 2001

3 이영준, "한국민법론" 박영사 2004

4 김기선, "한국물권법" 법문사 1985

5 이은영, "채권각론" 박영사 2004

6 김상용, "채권각론" 법문사 2003

7 곽윤직, "채권각론" 박영사 2007

8 이재성, "주석 민사집행법 V" 한국사법행정학회 2007

9 신국미, "유치권제도에 관한 연구; 동시이행항변권의 적용영역의 한계를 중심으로" 고려대 2003

10 추신영, "유치권자에 의한 경매신청" 24 (24): 2007

11 최금숙, "유치권의 성질 및 성립요건에 관한 몇가지 고찰" 이화여대 법학연구소 2 (2): 1998

12 차문호, "유치권의 성립과 경매" (42) : 2006

13 양창수, "유치권의 발생요건으로서의 ?채권과 물건 강의 견련관계?" 1 : 1993

14 이시윤, "신민사집행법" 박영사 2006

15 방순원, "신물권법" 일한도서 1960

16 오시영, "부동산유치권 강제집행에 대한 문제점과 입법론적 고찰" 23 (23): 2007

17 "법원실무제요: 민사집행(II), 법원행정처, 2003"

18 강민성, "민사집행과 유치권-이미 가압류 또는 압류가 이루어졌으나 저당권이 성절된 부동산에 관하여 취득한 점유 또는 견련성있는 채권으로써 경매절차에서 그 부동산을 매수한 사람을 상대로 내세워 대항하는 것이 허용되는지 여부에 관하여" (36) : 2004

19 윤철홍, "물권법강의" 박영사 1998

20 장경학, "물권법" 법문사 1990

21 이은영, "물권법" 박영사 2006

22 김증한, "물권법" 박영사 1998

23 김용한, "물권법" 박영사 1993

24 김상용, "물권법" 법문사 2003

25 곽윤직, "물권법" 박영사 2006

26 고상용, "물권법" 법문사 2001

27 이상태, "물권법" 박영사 2000

28 강대성, "강제집행법" 삼영사 2006

29 香川保一 監修, "註釋民事執行法(3), 金融財政事情硏究會, 1983"

30 星野英一, "日本の民法解釋學" 58 (58): 1982

31 西口元, "平成 11年度 主要民事判例解說 判例タイムズ 1036?, 2000. 9"

32 오시영, "“부동산 유치권의 한계와 입법적 검토”, 지암이선영박사화갑기념논문집-토지법의 이론과 실무, 법원사, 2006"

33 강대성, "“별제권의 법리”, 범주서영배교수화갑기념논문, 1995"

34 新美育文, "“建築請負業者の敷地についての商事留置權”, 判例タイムズ 901?(1996. 5. 1.)"

35 生熊長幸, "“建築請負代金債權による敷地への留置權と抵當權(下)”, 金融法務事情 1447?, 1996. 4"

36 泉田榮一, "“建築請負人の占有していた敷地に對する商事留置權の成否”, ジュリスト 別冊 164 ?, 2002"

37 秦光昭, "“不動産留置權と抵當權の優劣を決定する基準”, 金融法務事情 1437?, 1995. 12"

38 Brox, "Allgemeines Schuldrecht, 28. Aufl., C.H.Beck, 2002"