관습법상 법정지상권에 관한 고찰-대법원 2022.7.21.선고 2017다236749 전원합의체 판결- = A Study on the Superficies under Customary Law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Civil Law Article 279 (Contents of Superficies) A superficiary is entitled to use the land of another person for the purpose of owning buildings, other structures or trees thereon. Supreme Court precedent recognizesthe superficies under customary law.
Although many academic theories criticize the problems of the superficies under customary law or suggest alternatives, the majority opinion in the target judgment states that the confidence in the legal binding power of members of society with respect to customs regarding the superficies under customary law has disappeared or that such practices are essential. It was ruled that the legal normative force of the superficies under customary law should continue to be maintained for reasons such as the inability to find any data that could be recognized as having been changed. However, even though the superficies under customary law have played a positive role in preventing socioeconomic losses due to the demolition of buildings, there is a need to continue to reexamine the superficies under customary law not only in terms of specific validity but also in terms of system consistency with other legal systems. I don't think it can be denied. As with some of the negative opinions or opposing opinions in the target judgment, when the owner of a building and land changes due to a legal act, it can be concluded that there is an implied agreement regarding the use relationship of the land, and it can be concluded that there is an implied agreement on the use relationship of the land through a compulsory auction other than a legal act. Even if the owner of the building and land changes, it is believed that there is room for implicit permission to use it. Therefore, in the former case, it is considered that the establishment of contracted land rights, lease, etc. can be recognized according to the implied agreement reached, and in the latter case, based on recognition of permission to use the land. However, if it is difficult to recognize such agreement or implied permission to use, Article 366 of the Civil Act may be applied by analogy and the statutory land right under Article 366 of the Civil Act may be recognized as an exception.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이준현, "한국에 있어서 지상권의 현황과 개정 논의" 한국민사법학회 (75) : 2016

2 윤진수, "친족상속법 강의" 박영사 2023

3 김주수, "친족·상속법" 법문사 2013

4 김수일, "주석민법 물권 3" 한국사법행정학회 2019

5 송덕수, "신민법강의" 박영사 2017

6 김재형, "분묘기지권, 특히 그 시효취득에 관한 재검토" 한국법학원 (193) : 2022

7 권영준, "법률행위로 인한 관습법상 법정지상권 폐지와 법정임대차 도입-민법 개정안을 중심으로-" (68) : 2014

8 박재윤, "민법주해 제6권" 박영사 2011

9 김준호, "민법강의" 법문사 2016

10 강태성, "민법 제2편(물권)의 개정" 한국재산법학회 21 (21): 2005

11 장건 ; 서진형, "미등기건물의 관습법상 법정지상권에 관한 연구" 한국부동산경영학회 19 : 2019

12 이영준, "물권법" 박영사 2009

13 김상용, "물권법" 화산미디어 2018

14 곽윤직, "물권법" 박영사 2014

15 강태성, "물권법" 대명출판사 2020

16 고상룡, "물권법" 법문사 2001

17 강태성, "관습법상의 법정지상권에 관한 판례·학설 및 민법개정(시)안에 대한 검토" 한국재산법학회 30 (30): 2013

18 권재문, "관습법상 법정지상권의 인정근거와 필요성에 관한 비판적 고찰" 한국법사학회 (37) : 2008

19 이진기, "관습법상 법정지상권의 문제" 한국비교사법학회 18 (18): 2011

20 윤진수, "관습법상 법정지상권을 인정하는 판례에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 대법원 2022. 7. 21. 선고 2017다236749 전원합의체 판결" 사법발전재단 (65) : 2023

21 강신웅, "관습법상 법정지상권에 관한 연구" 한국법학회 (31) : 2008

22 이계정, "관습법상 법정지상권 법리의 재검토와 대안으로서 의사해석에 기한 임대차의 추정" 한국민사법학회 (97) : 2021

23 김명숙, "2022년도 민법총칙, 물권법 판례 평석" 안암법학회 (66) : 2023

24 오지용, "2022년 민법총칙 및 물권법 중요판례평석" 대한변호사협회 (512) : 2023

25 권영준, "2014년 법무부 민법개정시안해설(민법총칙·물권편)" 법무부 2017