도급건물의 소유권귀속에 대한 판례분석 - 수급인이 재료의 전부 또는 주요부분을 제공한 경우 = Cases’s Analysis on the Ownership of Building - Focusing on All or Main Part of Building Material Provided Only by the Worker -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

  The Korea civil act does not regulate who owns the worked building when the all or main part of building material for building construction is provided. Under article 664 of Korea civil act, a contractor has a right to receive a consideration for the results of the work and promises to complete a construction work. Even if a contractor provides the all or main part of building material for building construction, the contractor can’t own the worked building. This means that a contractor has only a right to receive a consideration for the results of the work to the person who ordered work.<BR>  However a lot of cases assert that a contactor is the one who first owns the constructed building and this ownership is subsequently transferred to the person who ordered the work, if a contract is signed for the guarantee of a payment for the consideration for results of the work. If cases referring to works are considered carefully, those cases can be divided into two occasions: One occasion with a contract of work and the other occasion without a contract of work. A contractor who provided the all or main part of building material for building construction, basically has the ownership of a worked building if there exists a contract of work. But the person who ordered work, has a ownership of a worked building if there is a consent about above person’ ownership between this person and the other contract’s party(a contractor) or if a contractor is recorded on preannounced registration.<BR>  However, if there exists no contract of work, for example, when not a person other than the land owner gets the go-ahead on building project, the ownership belongs to an applied person or a land owner case by case. This situation is a little changed after the enforcement of a act on the registration of real estate under actual titleholder’s name.<BR>  If the contract of work is concluded, it is wrong for a contractor to have the ownership of a worked building in view of the character of this contract. the worked building also belong to the person who ordered the work. Likewise, there is no problem about a right to get the charges of works because a contractor has a right of retention, exceptio non adimpleti contractus and a right to demand creation of mortgage on building which is object of contract. Because of what’s explained above, a contractor has the stable position of this contract.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 들어가며
  Ⅱ. 판례의 경향
  Ⅲ. 판례분석
  Ⅳ. 맺으며
  【참고문헌】
  [Abstract]
  

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김기선, "한국채권법각론" 법문사 1982

2 곽윤직, "채권각론" 박영사 2000

3 이태재, "채권각론" 진명출판사 1985

4 김주수, "채권각론" 삼영사 1997

5 김형배, "채권각론" 박영사 2001

6 서거석, "유치권자의 경락인에 대한 피담보채권의 변제청구권의 유무" (26) :

7 김상용, "우선특권에 관한 고찰" (197) : 1990

8 이상태, "완성건물의 소유권귀속에 관한 연구" 건국대 법학연구소 1997

9 제철웅, "신축건물의 양도담보에서의 법률문제" 546 : 2002

10 김종권, "신축건물에 대한 양도담보권자의 제3자에 대한 지위-대법원 2002.1.11.선고 2001다48347 판결-" (410) : 2006

11 김현태, "신고채권각론" 일조각 1969

12 김상용, "부동산공사수급인의 우선특권-우리 민법상의 수급인의 저당권설정청구권과의 비교-" (4) : 2000

13 이영준, "민법총칙" 박영사 2007

14 김상용, "민법총칙" 법문사 2003

15 이은영, "민법총칙" 박영사 2004

16 구욱서, "민법 제666조 주석" 박영사 15 : 1995

17 최창열, "도급계약에서의 소유권귀속에 관한 연구" 20 (20): 2003

18 조성민, "도급계약법의 문제점과 개선방향" (15) : 1997

19 이청조, "도급건축물의 소유권귀속에 관한 연구" (2) : 1986

20 김형수, "도급건축물의 소유권귀속에 관한 연구" 5 : 1999

21 김태창, "담보권자명의의 건축허가로 건물을 신축한 경우의 법률관계" 15 : 2003

22 박혜선, "공사수급인의 유치권과 관련된 사례검토" 7 :

23 吉原節夫, "請負契約における所有權移轉時期" 有斐閣

24 柚木馨, "請負と所有權移轉時期, 判例演習債權法(2)" 有斐閣

25 甲斐道太郞, "註釋民法(8)"

26 中俊雄, "註釋民法(16)" 有斐閣

27 內田貴, "民法II:債權各論" 東京大學出版會 1999

28 石田喜久夫, "所有權の移轉と對抗要件" 43 (43):

29 來栖三郞, "契約法" 有斐閣

30 我妻榮, "債權各論" 岩波書店