영국에서 등기제도가 점유취득시효에 미친 영향

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Once property is recognised as a relationship of socially approved control, it becomes infinitely more accurate to say that one has property in a thing than to declare that something is one’s property. To claim ’property’ in a resource is, in effect, to assert a strategically important degree of control over that resource. The power relationship implicit in property is not an absolute but a relative phenomenon. In relation to land, the common law knows no absolute title; all title remains relative and, even in its statutory form, essentially defeasible. This aspect of the common law is sometimes called relativity of title. The courts looked at all rights to land as relative and would declare the person with the best title to be entitled to the land. Despite the long-standing common law protection of possession, there are convincing arguments against adverse possession in modem times. The vast majority of titles to land are now registered and it is the fact of registration that confers legal title upon the landowner. This makes any argument that is based on relativity of title less convincing, because the register guarantees title. In addition, the argument that the squatter may not know from whom to seek permission to allow them to occupy the land rings less true: the squatter might easily look up the proprietor in the register-particularly easily if they can access the register online-and negotiate to buy, or lease, the apparently unwanted land. Only if the registered proprietor has disappeared without trace is there much justification for simply moving in, tempting though it might be to do so. The Land Registration Act 2002 has considerably reduced the significance of the doctrine of adverse possession in the system of registered titles; and as that system is rapidly replacing the unregistered system, the importance of adverse possession will diminish rapidly.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 보통법에서의 점유취득시효
• Ⅲ. 등기제도와 점유취득시효
• Ⅳ. 결론

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "헌법재판소 판례집" 5 (5): 46-,

2 이기용, "한국민법에 있어서 취득시효완성의 효과" 한국민사법학회 (37) : 3-38, 2007

3 이기용, "타인의 토지의 매매와 자주점유의 추정" (68) : 200-, 2002

4 박준서, "주석민법 물권 1" 한국사법 행정학회 714-719, 2001

5 이기용, "부동산 취득시효에 관한 연구" 성균관대학교 1990

6 송덕수, "부동산 점유취득시효의 요건으로서의 자주점유와 악의의 무단점유" (16) : 271-, 1998

7 박찬주, "부동산 시효취득" 법원행정처 16 : 1989

8 양창수, "민법연구 제9권" 박영사 286-, 2007

9 박홍래, "미국재산법" 전남대학교 출판부 2004

10 현승종, "로마법Ⅰ" 박영사 567-, 1996

11 서민, "등기부취득시효의 요건" 박영사 8 : 1986

12 현승종, "게르만법 증보관" 209-, 1988

13 Henry W. Ballatine, "Title by Adverse Possession" 1918

14 Oliver Wendell Holmes, "The Path of the Law" 477-, 1897

15 Alegandro M. Garro, "Recordation of Interests in Land, (International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Volume Ⅵ Property and Trust, Chapter 8)" 2004

16 Dukeminier, "Property(six edition)" Aspen 2006

17 Bostick, C. Dent, "Land Title Registration : An English Solution to an American Problem" 1988

18 Kevin Gray, "Land Law, 5th. ed." Oxford 2007

19 Margaret Wilkie, "Land Law" Oxford 23-, 2007

20 "Land Law" Oxford 2008

21 Konrad Zweigert, "Introduction to Comparative Law" Clarendon Press․ Oxford 1987