취득시효 기산점에 변론주의가 적용되는지 여부에 관한 연구 = The Study on the Application of Oral Proceeding System to the Starting Point of Acquisitive Prescription

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Supreme Court decisions say that the starting point of the term of acquisitive prescription is an indirect fact and therefore not subject to the responsibility for allegation or admission. When the Supreme Court’s rulings use the term ‘the starting point of the term of acquisitive prescription’, there are cases where the meaning of the term appears to mean the starting point of occupation (the historical fact of when occupation begins). There are also cases where it appears to mean a legal starting point (a legal judgment of ‘when the process of an acquisitive prescription begins’). Therefore, in this paper, I examined whether the positions of the above Supreme Court decisions were reasonable in each of the above cases.
Both a fact-in-issue and an indirect fact are historical and specific ‘facts’, not a legal judgment. And among a fact-in-issue and an indirect fact, only a fact-in-issue is subject to the responsibility for allegation and admission.
The legal starting point is not a fact but a legal judgment, so it cannot be either a fact-in-issue or an indirect fact. Therefore, the legal starting point is not an indirect fact.
The starting point of occupation is a fact, and whether it is a fact-in-issue determines whether the responsibility for allegation and admission, which are the contents of the oral proceeding system, are applied. There is little practical benefit in discussing whether the responsibility for allegation and admission applies if there is no change in ownership (since there is no need to determine when the starting point of occupation is). However, if there is a change in ownership, this may determine the outcome of the lawsuit.
The starting point of occupation is logically inseparable from 20 years of occupation, which is a fact-in-issue. In addition, not applying the responsibility for allegation and admission to the starting point of occupation has the disadvantage of inflicting unexpected damage on a party to the lawsuit, increasing the burden on a party and the court, and hindering a speedy and economical trial. Therefore, I think the starting point of occupation is a fact-in-issue.
In conclusion, I don’t think that the view of the Supreme Court rulings that the starting point of the term of acquisitive prescription is indirect fact is valid, whether the starting point here means the legal starting point or the starting point of occupation.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 석현수, "주장책임에 관한 대법원 판결에 대한 고찰" 법학연구소 37 (37): 215-236, 2020

2 김봉수, "점유취득시효의 기산점에 관한 연구" 성신여자대학교 법학연구소 (12) : 77-94, 2013

3 이시윤, "신민사소송법" 박영사 2018

4 석현수, "시효소멸 인정과 원용의 관계" 한국민사법학회 88 : 65-95, 2019

5 배병일, "부동산 취득시효의 판례 5원칙에 관한 연구" 한국민사법학회 (16) : 389-440, 1998

6 최성호, "변론주의의 근거와 적용범위에 관한 검토" 법학연구소 12 (12): 83-105, 2011

7 황형모, "변론에서 주장이 필요한 여부에 관련한 판례의 검토" 동아대학교 법학연구소 (62) : 331-365, 2014

8 사법연수원, "법학전문대학원 민사재판실무" 사법연수원 2022

9 법원행정처, "법원실무제요 민사소송 Ⅱ" 법원행정처 2017

10 박태신, "민사소송에서 요건사실에 관한 연구 - 요건사실의 기능을 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 17 (17): 329-350, 2016

11 박재완, "민사소송법강의" 박영사 2019

12 호문혁, "민사소송법" 법문사 2016

13 김홍규, "민사소송법" 삼영사 2014

14 김홍엽, "민사소송법" 박영사 2020

15 석현수, "민법상 요건사실에 관한 소고" 법학연구원 27 (27): 155-189, 2017

16 강구욱, "消滅時效 完成의 效果" 법학연구소 39 (39): 69-89, 2015