구분소유적 공유의 법적 구성 : 상호명의신탁설과 공유설 = The Legal Constitution of Co-ownership of Divided Ownership Type The theory of mutual title trust and the theory of co-ownership

국문 초록 (Abstract)

토지나 건물의 일부를 매수하고자 하는 경우 분필등기를 하거나 구분소유등기를 하기보다는 공유지분등기하는 경우가 세제상 저렴하거나 비과세될 수 있기 때문에 후자(=구분소유적 공유)의 방법을 이용하는 경우가 많다.
이와 같은 구분소유적 공유현상은, 1물1권주의와 토지등기에 관한 1필지1등기용지주의의 원칙, 그리고 부동산 물권변동에 관한 효력요건주의의 원칙을 엄격하게 관철할 경우에는 1필지의 토지 중 특정부분을 매수하고서도 공유지분이전등기를 경료한 구분소유적 공유관계에서 그 공유의 등기는 실체관계에 부합하지 않는 등기로서 그 유효성이 문제될 수 있다.
그러나 구분소유적 공유관계에 있어서 공유지분이전등기의 유효성을 인정하는 것에는 다툼이 없다. 다만 어떻게 법적 구성을 할 것인가에 대하여 상호명의신탁설과 공유설의 대립이 있다. 즉, 구분소용적 공유관계에 관한 상호명의신탁설과 공유설의 대립은 공유지분의 등기를 각 당사자 상호간의 명의신탁의 등기로서 유효성을 인정할 것인지, 아니면 공시된 그대로 일반적인 공유관계의 등기로서 유효성을 인정하되 다만 일반 공유와는 다른 점들은 당사자 간의 특약으로 공유의 법리에 포섭시킬 것인지에 대한 다툼이라고 할 것이다.
이 논문에서는 구분소유적 공유관계에 관한 법적 구성에 있어서 상호명의신탁설과 공유설의 논거를 분석하고 검토하여 어느 입장이 현행법의 체제에서 해석론으로 타당한가를 밝히고 있다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study examined how co-ownership of divided ownership type should be constituted legally by comparing the theory of mutual title trust and the theory of co-ownership in terms of theoretical ground, strengths and weaknesses, and specific problems.
The theory of mutual title trust established through judicial precedents does not give a clear answer, but there is also a skeptical position on whether the theory of co-ownership can be an alternative.
Although the theory of co-ownership has a problem in its theoretical assumption, however, we found that it can explain easily issues such as transfer to a third party, void share, and legal land right, which are hardly explainable with the theory of mutual title trust.
Like this, in order to solve the discrepancy that, with regard to the co-ownership relation of divided ownership type, the form of legislation cannot represent the substance of ownership in the legal relation, it is suggested: (1) to revise the Registration of Real Estate Act to simplify the procedure of dividing co-ownership of land; or (2) to add provisions on co-ownership of divided ownership type in the Cvil Code.
Then, rather than relying on judicial precedents or academic theories for the co-ownership relation of divided ownership type, we can apply Article 1-2 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, which was added on July 18, 2003 (Divided Ownership of Commercial Buildings) "1) If a building is divided into several building parts for use in any of ways listed below, each the building parts ("divided stores" hereinafter) can be an object of ownership as stipulated in this law: (1). The use of the divided store is a sales or business facility under Paragraph 6 of Subsection 2 of Section 2 of the Building Act; (2). The total floor area for the use of the sales or business under Paragraph 1 including the divided store in the building should be over 1,000 square meter; (3). Clear marks of boundary should be installed firmly on the floor; and 4. Each divided store should be assigned a building number and have a sign of the building number fixed firmly. 2) Boundary marks and the sign of building number provided in Paragraph 1 shall be stipulated by a Presidential decree." Thus, for land co-ownership of divided ownership type, it is considered desirable to solve legislatively by adopting the legal theory of judicial precedents. If not, it is keenly necessary to supplement the position of judicial precedents assuming the theory of mutual title trust with the theory of co-ownership.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 開題의 提起
• Ⅱ. 相互名義信託說
• Ⅲ. 共有說
• Ⅳ. 檢討
• Ⅴ. 結語