RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    부동산등기의 공신력 인정에 관한 소고 = A few thoughts on the public trust of the registration of real estate

    한글로보기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    The Civil Act adopts formalism regarding changes in real estate rights, but takes an exceptional form that denies the public trust of registration. However, in the current reality of real estate transactions and registration, the threat factors have decreased compared to the past when exceptions were recognized, while the need for recognition of public trust has significantly increased. Therefore, there is a need to go back to principles and recognize the public trust of registration. However, if public trust of registration is recognized, there is a possibility that a gap may arise in the protection of true rights holders, so institutional improvement must be carried out to resolve this.
    The review of improvement measures is as follows. First, introducing a notarization system in the registration process is ineffective. Notarization can help ensure the authenticity of the registration. However, considering the reality that the number of registration applications reaches 10 million per year and the reality of notaries, having them handle all of them may result in excessive costs and delays. Second, it is not appropriate for the registrar to conduct a substantive review. In a reality where the number of registrations handled by one registrar reaches 15,000 per year, if a substantive review were conducted on all of them, this would also result in excessive costs and delays. Third, it is necessary to introduce a damage compensation system. If the true right holder suffers damage due to the recognition of public trust of the registration, a system is needed to compensate for the damage. Since the target is only a small part, the cost required is limited, and if additional measures to secure authenticity are established, the scope can be further limited. Fourth, a system is needed to ensure the confirmation and correction of rights holders. At the time of registration, it is necessary to notify the registration obligor of the relevant fact to provide the rights holder with an opportunity to recognize the problem, and provide an opportunity for correction only in cases where an objection is raised. Fifth, it is necessary to preserve the certificate of registration cause in electronic form. Through this, we can expect to secure stable post-verification possibilities, secure the stability and reliability of the registration system, and increase work efficiency by expanding usability. Sixth, it is necessary to provide diverse and accurate information on real estate transactions. It is necessary to provide information by utilizing connections between various systems that have already been established, and to provide accurate information by institutionalizing periodic correction of inconsistencies in overlapping parts of related information. Seventh, continuous review of the use of cutting-edge technology is necessary. Reviewing the use of technology is worth continuing regardless of whether it is introduced or not, as it is itself a preparation for change.
    번역하기

    The Civil Act adopts formalism regarding changes in real estate rights, but takes an exceptional form that denies the public trust of registration. However, in the current reality of real estate transactions and registration, the threat factors have d...

    The Civil Act adopts formalism regarding changes in real estate rights, but takes an exceptional form that denies the public trust of registration. However, in the current reality of real estate transactions and registration, the threat factors have decreased compared to the past when exceptions were recognized, while the need for recognition of public trust has significantly increased. Therefore, there is a need to go back to principles and recognize the public trust of registration. However, if public trust of registration is recognized, there is a possibility that a gap may arise in the protection of true rights holders, so institutional improvement must be carried out to resolve this.
    The review of improvement measures is as follows. First, introducing a notarization system in the registration process is ineffective. Notarization can help ensure the authenticity of the registration. However, considering the reality that the number of registration applications reaches 10 million per year and the reality of notaries, having them handle all of them may result in excessive costs and delays. Second, it is not appropriate for the registrar to conduct a substantive review. In a reality where the number of registrations handled by one registrar reaches 15,000 per year, if a substantive review were conducted on all of them, this would also result in excessive costs and delays. Third, it is necessary to introduce a damage compensation system. If the true right holder suffers damage due to the recognition of public trust of the registration, a system is needed to compensate for the damage. Since the target is only a small part, the cost required is limited, and if additional measures to secure authenticity are established, the scope can be further limited. Fourth, a system is needed to ensure the confirmation and correction of rights holders. At the time of registration, it is necessary to notify the registration obligor of the relevant fact to provide the rights holder with an opportunity to recognize the problem, and provide an opportunity for correction only in cases where an objection is raised. Fifth, it is necessary to preserve the certificate of registration cause in electronic form. Through this, we can expect to secure stable post-verification possibilities, secure the stability and reliability of the registration system, and increase work efficiency by expanding usability. Sixth, it is necessary to provide diverse and accurate information on real estate transactions. It is necessary to provide information by utilizing connections between various systems that have already been established, and to provide accurate information by institutionalizing periodic correction of inconsistencies in overlapping parts of related information. Seventh, continuous review of the use of cutting-edge technology is necessary. Reviewing the use of technology is worth continuing regardless of whether it is introduced or not, as it is itself a preparation for change.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 최승영, "우리나라 부동산 등기제도의 개선 방안에 관한 연구" 대한민사법학회 12 (12): 2004

    2 조인연, "우리나라 근대적 부동산공시제도의 도입 배경에 관한 연구" 중앙대학교 법학연구원 47 (47): 2023

    3 박시훈, "영국의 부실등기에 대한 피해보상제도" 한국비교사법학회 23 (23): 2016

    4 송덕수, "신민법강의" 박영사 2015

    5 한정희, "블록체인 부동산등기의 원리와 응용 연구" 한국부동산학회 73 : 2018

    6 신국미, "블록체인 기반의 부동산등기제도에 관한 시론" 한국지적학회 37 (37): 2021

    7 이창현, "부실등기로 인한 피해보상제도에 관한 연구" 국회입법조사처 9 (9): 2017

    8 홍동기, "부실등기 방지를 위한 등기신청절차의 개선방안" 경성대학교 법학연구소 22 (22): 2013

    9 이동선, "부동산물권의 등기를 통한 공시와 제3자 보호" 제주대학교 법과정책연구원 26 (26): 2020

    10 김상묵, "부동산등기제도의 문제점과 개선방안" 한국법학회 26 : 2007

    1 최승영, "우리나라 부동산 등기제도의 개선 방안에 관한 연구" 대한민사법학회 12 (12): 2004

    2 조인연, "우리나라 근대적 부동산공시제도의 도입 배경에 관한 연구" 중앙대학교 법학연구원 47 (47): 2023

    3 박시훈, "영국의 부실등기에 대한 피해보상제도" 한국비교사법학회 23 (23): 2016

    4 송덕수, "신민법강의" 박영사 2015

    5 한정희, "블록체인 부동산등기의 원리와 응용 연구" 한국부동산학회 73 : 2018

    6 신국미, "블록체인 기반의 부동산등기제도에 관한 시론" 한국지적학회 37 (37): 2021

    7 이창현, "부실등기로 인한 피해보상제도에 관한 연구" 국회입법조사처 9 (9): 2017

    8 홍동기, "부실등기 방지를 위한 등기신청절차의 개선방안" 경성대학교 법학연구소 22 (22): 2013

    9 이동선, "부동산물권의 등기를 통한 공시와 제3자 보호" 제주대학교 법과정책연구원 26 (26): 2020

    10 김상묵, "부동산등기제도의 문제점과 개선방안" 한국법학회 26 : 2007

    11 전장헌, "부동산등기의 공신력에 대한 제도적인 보완방안" 단국대학교 법학연구소 41 (41): 2017

    12 강태원, "부동산등기의 공신력에 관한 일고찰" 연세법학회 1 : 1990

    13 김명엽, "부동산등기의 공신력과 진정성 확보에 대한 연구" 건국대학교 법학연구소 (30) : 2015

    14 유주선, "부동산등기의 공신력과 도입에 대한 비판적 검토" 한국부동산학회 36 : 2009

    15 허성욱, "부동산등기원인행위의 공증제도 의무화로 인한 사회적 비용과 편익에 관한 법경제학적 분석연구" 법무부 2011

    16 곽윤직, "부동산등기법" 박영사 2001

    17 김상철, "부동산 등기제도의 개선 방안에 관한 연구" 사법정책연구원 2015

    18 고유강, "부동산 거래에의 스마트계약 도입과 관련된 법적 문제들" 법조협회 69 (69): 2020

    19 지원림, "민법강의" 홍문사 2021

    20 김준호, "민법강의" 법문사 2020

    21 "민법(재산편) 개정 자료집"

    22 양형우, "물권법" 정독 2024

    23 이은영, "물권법" 박영사 2006

    24 ㈜지크립토, "등기・등록 정보의 보호・강화를 위한 블록체인 등 새로운 시스템 도입에 관한 연구" 법원행정처 2023

    25 송삼용, "등기제도의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구" 연세대학교 법학연구원 33 (33): 2023

    26 박종원, "등기의 추정력에 관한 고찰" 대한민사법학회 12 (12): 2004

    27 한삼인, "등기의 공신력과 거래안전" 법조협회 57 (57): 2008

    28 권영준, "등기의 공신력 – 1957년, 그리고 2011년" 법조협회 (661) : 2011

    29 홍성재, "등기원인증서의 공증제도 도입" 한국법정책학회 6 (6): 2006

    30 안태근, "등기원인증서의 공증과 등기의 공신력" 법조협회 54 (54): 2005

    31 이용, "등기단계에서의 부동산 거래의 안전확보 방안" 민사법의 이론과 실무학회 21 (21): 2018

    32 윤철홍, "독일 민법상 부동산등기의 공신력에 관한 소고" 한국토지법학회 34 (34): 2018

    33 박광동, "4차 산업혁명시대의 부동산 등기제도의 변화 전망과 과제" 건국대학교 법학연구소 (15) : 2017

    34 "2003~2023 「사법연감」"

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼