신탁부동산에 대한 임차권의 대항력 = Effect of the leasehold on trust real estate

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

As a trust for real estate increases, the disputes over lease on trust real estate expand. When the lessee has met the requirements prescribed in article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act or the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, he/she can assert the leasehold against third parties. But the effect of the leasehold or the range of opposability is not clear enough to regulate the relationship between the parties and to solve the disputes. This paper examines these issues through the Supreme Court decisions and literature concerned.
When the lessor settles a trust and transfers the house, the lessee who has been provided with the house and completed resident registration can assert the leasehold against the trustee. The trustee succeeds the status of lessor as transferee. Even If the terms of trust provided otherwise and were registered as a trust registration under the Real Estate Registration Act, they do not have binding effect to the lessee. When the lessee contracts with a trustee or a settlor as his/her agent, the lessor is the trustee. However, if the settlor with an authority to lease contracts, the lessee can assert the leasehold against the trustee. That means the lessee can occupy and use the house according to the contract, but he/she cannot claim the restoration of deposit against the trustee. Because the lessor is settlor, the contract party and the trustee is not a transferee. In addition, the lessee cannot claim the restoration of deposit against a transferee, when the trustee transfers the house. Therefore, judicial precedents so far which have been based on the opposability of trust registration and assertions which do not distinguish the case in which the lessor is not an owner should be reappraised.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박준서, "주석 민법 채권각칙(3)" 한국사법행정학회 1999

2 김용덕, "주석 민법 채권각칙(3)" 한국사법행정학회 2021

3 이준현, "임대인에 의한 임차목적물의 양도와 임대차관계에 대한 영향" 11 (11): 2004

4 양창수, "신탁자와의 임대차계약과 수탁자로부터의 양수인에 대한 대항력"

5 남궁주현, "신탁원부에 기초한 신탁등기 대항력의 인정 범위에 관한 소고" 35 (35): 2022

6 정순섭, "신탁법" 지원출판사 2021

7 최수정, "신탁법" 박영사 2023

8 장보은, "신탁등기의 대항력에 관한 소고 –판례의 태도와 이에 대한 비판을 중심으로-" 64 (64): 2023

9 김송, "신탁등기의 대항력과 주택임대차보호법상 대항력-대법원 2022. 2. 17. 선고2019다300095(본소), 2019다300101(반소)판결을 중심으로-" 55 : 2023

10 이연갑, "신탁등기의 대항력" 27 (27): 2019

11 송덕수, "신민법강의" 박영사 2019

12 도건철, "부동산신탁과 임대차의 대항력" (94) : 2019

13 곽윤직, "민법주해 ⅩⅤ" 박영사 1997

14 곽윤직, "민법주해 ⅩⅢ" 박영사 1997

15 지원림, "민법강의" 홍문사 2021

16 양창수, "민법Ⅱ 권리의 변동과 구제" 박영사 2015

17 이동진, "매매계약이 해제된 경우 미등기 매수인이 한 임대차의 운명-대법원 2008. 4. 10. 선고 2007다38908, 38915 판결-" (68) : 2014

18 민유숙, "대법원판례해설" 2004

19 松尾弘, "賃貸不動産の讓渡と賃貸人の地位" (24) : 2012

20 中田裕康, "講義 債權法改正" 商事法務 2018

21 潮見佳男, "詳解 改正民法" 商事法務 2018

22 大村敦志, "解說民法(債權法)改正のポイント" 有斐閣 2017

23 法務省民事局参事官室, "民法(債権関係)の改正に関する中間試案の補足説明"

24 池田眞朗, "新標準講義民法債權各論(第2版)" 慶應義塾大學出版會株式會社 2019

25 "Münchener Kommentar BGB" 2020

26 "Erman Kommentar BGB" 2017

27 노혁준, "2019년 주요 신탁판례 검토" (101) : 2020