부동산에 대한 상사유치권의 성립과 효력 - 일본 최고재판소 2017. 12. 14. 판결의 검토 - = The Validity and Requirements of Rights of Retention between Merchants on Real Estate - Case Comment on Supreme Court of Japan, Judgment of December 14, 2017, 2017 (Ju) 675, Minshu Vol. 71, No. 10 -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan, Judgment of December 14, 2017, 2017 (Ju) 675, Minshu Vol. 71, No. 10, on validity and requirements of rights of retention between merchants on real estate.
The Civil Code of Japan provides that ‘Things’ under the same code are real estate and movables, which are tangible objects (Article 85 and Article 86), while providing that the subject of a right of retention is a ‘Thing’, without excluding real property from such subject. On the other hand, Article 521 of the Commercial Code provides that the subject of a right of retention is ‘any object or negotiable instruments’, with no words suggesting that real property is excluded from such subject. The Court has found no other grounds for construing that the term ‘object’ as referred to in the said article is different from the term ‘Thing’ under the Civil Code.
The Supreme Court of Japan held that the intention of Article 521 of the Commercial Code is to specifically give the obligee the right to retain any object, etc. owned by the obligor of which the obligee has taken possession by way of a commercial transaction, in order to secure the claim arising from the act constituting the commercial transaction for the benefit of both parties, with the intention of ensuring the maintenance and safety of credit transactions between merchants. In light of the actual circumstances where transactions of real property between merchants are widespread, the understanding that real property can constitute the subject of a right of retention under the same article is consistent with the intention described above.
This paper, also, understands that it is appropriate to understand that real property constitutes an ‘object’ as referred to in Article 58 of the Commercial Code of Korea as the subject of a right of retention of merchants.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정동윤, "주석상법 - 총칙 · 상행위 (1)" 한국사법행정학회 2013

2 박준서, "주석 민법 [물권(3)]" 한국사법행정학회 2001

3 이시윤, "신민사집행법" 박영사 2020

4 이재석, "선행저당권과 상사유치권-대법원 2013. 2. 28. 선고 2010다57350 판결의 문제점과 그 해결방안"

5 이준형, "상사유치권(상법 제58조)의 성립요건" 한국비교사법학회 26 (26): 507-554, 2019

6 최기원, "상법학신론(상)" 박영사 2014

7 김정호, "상법총칙 · 상행위법" 법문사 2020

8 이종훈, "상법총칙 · 상행위법" 박영사 2017

9 최준선, "상법총칙 · 상행위법" 삼영사 2018

10 이철송, "상법총칙 · 상행위" 박영사 2018

11 정준우, "상법총론 - 총칙 상행위" 피앤씨미디어 2017

12 정찬형, "상법강의(상)" 박영사 2019

13 장덕조, "상법강의" 법문사 2019

14 김홍기, "상법강의" 박영사 2020

15 송옥렬, "상법강의" 홍문사 2020

16 정동윤, "상법(상)" 법문사 2012

17 손주찬, "상법 (상)" 박영사 2004

18 이선희, "부동산 유치권의 대항력 제한" 한국민사법학회 72 : 215-257, 2015

19 곽윤직, "물권법" 박영사 2011

20 中野貞一郎, "民事執行法" 靑林書院 2016

21 服部榮三, "新翻去コンメンタ一ル商法總則-商行爲法" 日本評論社 1997

22 中村信男, "新.判例解說Watch" 日本評論社 2018

23 道垣內弘人, "担保物權法" 有斐閣 2017

24 菅原胞治, "抵舎不動産と商事留置櫂をめぐる最近の問題点" 経濟法令研究會 (531) : 1997

25 畠山 新, "抵当權と不動産の商事留置櫂-大阪高裁平成23, 6, 7第11民事 部決定" 金融財政事情硏究會 60 (60): 2012

26 平田 厚, "建築請負契約における所有櫂の歸屬" 明治大學法科大學院 (9) : 2011

27 平井一雄, "建築請負人の建物敷地に對する商事留置櫂" 獨協大學法學會 (44) : 1997

28 石井眞司, "建物敷地に對する商事留置櫂と同敷地に對する（根）抵舎櫂" 民事法情報センタ一 (117) : 1996

29 吉田光碩, "建物建築請負人の敷地に對する商事留置櫂" 判例タイムズ社 50 (50): 1999

30 萩澤達彦, "建物建築工事請負人の敷地に對する商事留置櫂の成否" 成蹊大學法學會 (78) : 2013

31 田邊光政, "商法總則-商行爲法" 紐社 2016

32 神作裕之, "商法判例百選" 有斐閣 2019

33 林 敬祐, "商法521條と不動産に對する商事留置櫂" 金融財政事情研究會 (2102) : 2018

34 江頭憲治郎, "商取引法の基本問題" 有斐閣 2011

35 江頭憲治郎, "商取引法" 有斐閣 2017

36 山下眞弘, "商人間留置櫂の目的物に不動産が含まれるとされた事例" 経濟法令研究會 (1556) : 2019

37 野澤大和, "商人間の留置櫂の目的物と不動産-最小判平29.12.14" 金融財政事情研究會 (2083) : 2018

38 三苫 裕, "商事留置權の目的物に不動産が含まれるとした事例" 中央経濟社 18 (18): 2018

39 高橋英治, "商事留置櫂の目的物としての「不動産」一最高裁第一小法廷平成29, 12, 14判決" 有斐閣 (449) : 2018

40 清水太郎, "商事留置櫂と不動産（最高裁平成29, 12拳14判決)" 沖縄法政研究所 (21) : 2019

41 淸水眞希子, "商事留置櫂と不動産一最高裁平成29.12.14判決" 有斐閣 (455) : 2018

42 土井文美, "不動産は商法521條が商人間の留置櫂の目的物として定める物に当たるか（平成29, 12, 14判決)" 有斐閣 (1524) : 2018

43 吉岡伸一, "不動産は, 商法五ニ一條が商人間の留置權目的物として定める「物」に当たるのか？：最一小判平成ニ九年一二月一四日を中心に" 岡山大學法學會 68 (68): 2018

44 法曹時報編集部, "不動産は, 商法521條が商人間の留置櫂の目的物として定 める「物」に舎たるか（平成29·12·14判決）" 法曹會 71 (71): 2019

45 原弘明, "不動産に對する商人間留置權の成否-最判平成29年12月14日をふまえた抵当權者と留置權者との關係の再檢討" 關西大學法學會 69 (69): 2019

46 土岐孝宏, "不動産に對する商人間留置權(商法521條)の成立-平成29, 12, 14判決" 日本評論社 (758) : 2018

47 久留島隆, "不動産に對する商人間の留置櫂の成否と商人性の存否-東京高 裁判決平成8, 5拳28" 経濟研究會 (1006) : 1996

48 吉本健一, "不動産に對する商人間の留置櫂の成否" 判例時報社 (457) : 1997

49 佐藤勤, "不動産に對する商事留置櫂の成立の成否-大阪高裁平成23, 6 拳7決定を踏まえて" 経濟法令研究會 56 (56): 2012

50 岡田好弘, "不動産に對する商事留置櫂の成立-大阪高裁平成23, 6, 7決定" 駒澤大學法學部 13 (13): 2014

51 內田義厚, "不動産に對する商事留置櫂の成否に關する最ー小判平29, 12拳 14の意褰と今後一言蠢命の終焉のための整理" 金融財政事情研究會 (2101) : 2018

52 田邊光政, "不動産に對する商事留置櫂の成否" 金融財政事情研究會 45 (45): 1997

53 정병덕, "2014년 상법총칙․상행위법 판례의 동향과 분석 -2013년 판례와 함께-" 한국상사판례학회 28 (28): 295-334, 2015

54 김홍기, "2013년 분야별 중요판례분석: ⑩ 상법"

55 김재형, "2013년 분야별 중요판례분석-③ 민법 (상)"

56 淺生重機, ""建物建築請負人の建物敷地に對する商事留置櫂の成否凍京高 決平6, 2, 7,東京高決平6, 12, 19)" 金融財政事情研究會 44 (44): 1996