集合建物 區分所有法理의 再照明 = (A)review on the legal theory on the unit ownership of multi-unit building

국문 초록 (Abstract)

集合建物에 관하여 야기되는 다양하고, 복잡한 法律問題를 解決하기 위하여 1984년 4월 10일「集合建物의 所有 및 管理에 관한 法律」(이하 集合建物法이라함)을 制定·公布하고, 1985년부터 施行해오고 있다. 集合建物法에 의하면 集合建物이 專有部分, 共用部分, 垈地로 構成되고 있음을 前提로 하여 專有部分에 대해서는 單獨所有權을 인정하고. 共用部分과 垈地에 대해서는 專有部分에 따른 共有部分을 인정하고 있다. 그리고 이러한 세 要素에 대해서는 去來上 내지 管理上 不可分的 一體性을 부여하고 있다. 또한 集合建物內의 區分所有者 全體의 權益保護와 生活利益을 維持하기 위하여 管理團과 같은 組織을 인정하고 있다. 그런데,「地上物은 土地에 속한다」라는 法原則을 지켜온 로마나 게르만法系의 國家와 달리, 建物과 土地를 獨立된 不動産으로 취급하는 日本과 우리나라의 경우 區分所有法理構成에서 여러 가지 間題點이 발생하고 있다 즉, (1) 集合建物은 그 構造上 不可分的으로 結合되어 있는 一棟의 建物의 各 部分을 個別所有化한 것이기 때문에 必然的으로 集團的·共同的 利用·管理의 側面과 個別的인 所有·利用의 側面과의 對立關係가 存在하게 되고, 이들중 어느것에 重點을 두느냐에 따라서 集合建物區分所有制度의 運用方向이 달라지게 된다. (2) 建物의 立體的·集約的 利用의 要請은 土地의 高度利用의 必要를 그 社會的·經濟的 背景으로 한 것이기 때문에 建物의 立體的·集約的 利用에 대한 合理的 規制는 그 垈地에 대한 合理的 規制를 수반하게 되고, 이것은 결국 集合建物의 區分所有關係와 垈地의 權利關係와의 關聯問題 내지 調和問題로 歸着된다. 따라서 本稿에서는 이러한 問題點을 解決하기 위하여 入住者 (區分所有者)相互間의 法律關係를 合理的으로 規律하고, 共同財産인 集合建物과 垈地를 원할하게 管理하며, 共同生活을 보장하기 위하여 區分所有者團體 (管理團)를 頂点으로 하여 그 前提下에서 集合建物의 所有關係나 利用關係를 再照明하고자 하였다. 따라서 區分所有者는 管理團 (區分所有者團體)에 대한 法的 地位. 즉 社員權이라는 團體法的 權利에 기하여 소위 專用部分에 대하여 排他的으로 用益하고, 內部施設을 할 수 있는 專用權과 이에 從屬된, 共用部分에 대한 共用權을 갖게 된다. 한편 社員인 區分所有者는 管理團의 목적달성에 필요한 分讓代金, 管理費 기타 費用을 出資할 義務를 負擔하게 된다. 따라서 區分所有權은 實質的으로 修正되게 된다.
한편 集合建物法은 立法趣旨가 주로 住居用 集合建物의 公示·管理 등에 있음 불구하고, 同法은 住居用 集合建物의 管理間題 등을 주로 同法 附則 제6조에 의하여 住宅建設促進法에 미루고 있다. 따라서, 立法體系나 法適用의 混亂이 야기되고 있다. 現在로서는 集合建物法이 立法趣旨로 볼 때 基本法의 性格을 지니고 있다. 兩法은 整理되어야 한다. 整理時의 立法體系는 總則, 住居用 集合建物 기타 集合建物 등의 順序를 따라야 할 것이다.
요컨대 소위 二元說에 입각한 集合建物法에 대하여 一元說의 관점에서 批判하고. 外國의 立法例와 解釋論을 參照하여 새로운 解釋論및 立法論的 再照明을 試圖해보았다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Multi-Unit Building Act(MUBA) has been enacted on Apr. 10, 1984, and has come into force on the 1st of Apr., 1985. The reason is that various, complicated legal issues in the multi-unit building(MUB) couldn't be solved reasonably by only article 215 in civil law. Of course, there were also some legal issues in Real Regislation Act(RRA), and RRA has been amended. But in RRA there are still some legal issues. MUBA has been enacted on the assumption that MUB consists of private parts, common parts, and lots. The above-mentioned three elements are inseparably related in dealings or management. And MUBA has the unit owners' association for management(UOAM). By the way, Korean Civil Law and Japanese Civil Law have treated that lots and buildings are seperately immovables. Therefore, in Korea and Japan there are very difficult points in constructing legal theories on the multi-unit ownership. Multi-opinions and MUBA lead to so-called the dualistic theory. But if the essence of the MUB or the content of the MUBA should be considered, so-called the single theory could be confirmed to be correct. Therefore, the legal theory on the unit ownership of multi-unit building must be reconsidered. The single theory is as follows:that is to say all rights and duties of unit owners are derived from the management association(unit owners' association). By the theory, unit owners have the exclusive right of using on private parts, and the common right of using common parts. In short, all right and duties of unit owners are derived from the legal position of constituent members in management association. Consequently the status of unit ownership is modified essentially. And MUBA must be amended. The reason is that MUBA depends on Housing Construction Promotion Act(amendments 6 MUBA), that is, the main purpose of legislation in MUBA is to constrain the management and the ownership of the multi-unit housing. In revising the MMA, the legislator must consider the order of general rules, MUB rules and business multi-unit building rules.
In this thesis the MUBA was construed on the single theory and my opionions on revision of the MUBA were exhibited, MUBA should be regarded as fundammental law to the MUB management articles of the Housing Construction Promotion Act. This thesis has been concentrated on the multi-unit housing. The acts and decisions in foreign advanced countries(Germany, Swiss, France, U.S.A., and Japan etc) were referred. In reviewing the legal theory on the unit ownership of multu-unit building, the fundamental jurisprudence, e.g. sociology of law, history of law, comparative jurisprudence, and dogmatic jurisprudence were referred. The condensing points reviewed in the thesis are as follows:
1. Reality of MUB and legal theory of unit ownership
Here the problems about sale-cotract on the units in MUB, defects mending on the MUB, refusal to pay the builder from the bank etc. and managements in MUB have been considered. And it was proved that the single theory is better than so-called the dualistic theory in constructing the legal theory on the multi-unit building.
2. History and example of legislation in foreign countries on the unit ownership in MUB
In constructing the legal theory on the unit ownership of multi-unit building, especially article 712 in Swiss civil law, WEG, cooperative system in U.S.A. and the legislation process and construction theories in the Unit Ownership Act in Japan were very helpful.
3. MUB managements
Especially the fate of common parts in MUB depends on good management. The exhaustive management of common parts and private parts are related to each other inseparably. Therefore, the legal character of the unit owners' association for management must be understood as the association without legal personality or a corpoation. And MUB bylaws must be also added rationally and effectively.
4. Legal status of unit owners
The legal status of unit owners is amended substantially. That is to say, unit owners have the exclusive right of using private parts and common right of using common parts. The common right consists of the common right in a narrow sense and the right to use lots. Meanwhile, constituent members for management association are charged to pay purchasing expenses for MUB unit, expenses for MUB management etc. necessary for the purpose of the unit owners' association.
5. Legislation theory
(1) MUBA and Housing Construction Promotion Act must be rearranged.
(2) The purchasers of MUB unit must be protected from the builder refused to be paid from the bank etc. Therefore, special laws concerned must be added.
(3) A precaution against untruthful making for MUB must be taken. Effective mending for defects in MUB must be done.
(4) Ownership, management, use, and declaration of MUB must be constructed, and should be derived from the unit owners' association for management, and in this respect the legal status of unit owner must be also given.
(5) The registration on the right to use lots must be mended according to the single theory.
(6) The voting right in the unit owners' association for MUB management general meeting must be given according to the single-vote-per-resident rule.
(7) Before constituent member is punished for his infringement of common interests, the case must be conciliated.
(8) In the UOAM the auditor must be installed.
(9) Lots in the MUB must be registered as a piece of lot in principle.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 國文抄錄
• 序論 = 1
• 第1章 集合建物의 實態와 區分所有法理 = 6
• I. 序說 = 6
• II. 集合建物의 實態 = 7
• III. 集合建物法의 立法內容 = 16
• 1. 立法趣旨 = 16
• 2. 立法經緯 = 17
• 3. 集合建物法의 內容 = 19
• IV. 區分所有法理 = 20
• 1. 學說 = 21
• 2. 結語 = 27
• 第2章 沿革. 立法例 = 33
• I. 로마法 = 33
• II. 게르만法 = 34
• III. 獨逸法 = 35
• IV. 프랑스法 = 39
• V. 스위스法 = 47
• VI. 美國法 = 50
• VII. 日本法 = 55
• 第3章 集合建物의 管理 = 60
• I. 序說 = 60
• II. 管理團 = 62
• 1. 管理團의 位相 再定立 = 62
• 2. 管理人 = 69
• 3. 規約 = 75
• 4. 管理團集會 = 79
• III. 特殊管理 = 83
• 1. 集合建物의 瑕疵管理 = 84
• 2. 集合建物의 復舊와 再建築 = 85
• (1) 集合建物의 復舊 = 86
• (2) 再建築 = 87
• 第4章 區分所有者의 法的地位 = 95
• I. 序說 = 95
• II. 區分所有者의 權利 = 95
• 1. 專用權 = 95
• 2. 共用權 = 111
• (1) 共用樣(狹義) = 111
• (2) 垈地使用權 = 131
• 3. 專用部分 등의 使用請求權 = 140
• III. 區分所有者의 義務 = 142
• 1. 共同利益尊重義務 = 142
• 2. 義務違反에 대한 措置 = 145
• IV. 賃借人 등의 法的 地位 = 151
• 1. 所有와 居住의 分離現象과 管理問題 = 151
• 2. 內容 = 153
• 3. 問題點 = 159
• V. 登記 = 162
• 1. 不動産登記法의 改正內容 = 162
• 2. 集合建物登記와 判例 = 165
• 3. 一元說과 登記 = 166
• 4. 一元說과 垈地 = 167
• 結論(立法論) = 170
• 參考文獻 = 177
• ABSTRACT = 188