중간생략등기법리에 대한 재검토

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The intermediate omission registration law is condensed into three issues under the premise that the Act on Special Measures for Real Estate Registration is regarded as a regulation law. In other words, i) what is the subject of the contract of sale between the intermediary and the final buyer, and how is it implemented? ⅱ) whether the final buyer can claim the ownership transfer register directly with the original seller, iii) whether the registered registration of the final buyer is valid. First, since the contract of sale in i) is a trade in other rights under the requirements of establishment law under Article 186 of the Civil Code, it is contrary to the requirements of establishment of the Supreme Court to presuppose the intermediary‘s sale as a sale of rights in self. In addition, if the parties expressly agree to claim the transfer of ownership rights of the intermediary, it is the sale of the bonds. In this case, in respect of the opposition, either notice or consent may be used. Next, in ii), the Supreme Courts attitude to obtain the basis for claiming the transfer of ownership rights in an agreement of intermediate omission is reasonable, but additional requirements such as granting representative rights or third party terms should be added. Finally, the registration registered of the final buyer in iii) is valid, subject to the initial sellers consent to the disposition of the rights holder, whether or not agreed by the three parties, and thus the general effect of registration, including presumptive power, arises. Therefore, the original seller bears the burden of proof that he does not have his or her consent. Based on the above discussion, the intermediate omission registration legal theory, which the Supreme Court has long formed, should be reviewed.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정병호, "중간생략등기청구권과 중간생략등기의 효력에 관한 일고찰" 한국재산법학회 31 (31): 1-27, 2014

2 이보환, "중간생략등기" 43 : 1988

3 이시윤, "신민사소송법" 박영사 2017

4 이재명, "시효취득으로 인한 소유권이전등기청구권의 양도에 관한 고찰 - 대상판결 : 대법원 2018. 7. 12. 선고 2015다36167 판결 -" 법학연구원 (93) : 39-71, 2019

5 재정경제원, "부동산실명법 해설 – 실무사례 문답수록-" 1999

6 정병호, "부동산매매로 인한 소유권이전등기청구권의 성질상 양도 제한 여부" 대한변호사협회 (330) : 174-189, 2004

7 김동호, "부동산등기의 추정력의 본질과 효과" 법학연구소 27 (27): 45-66, 2007

8 정동윤, "민사소송법" 박영사 2017

9 양창수, "민법연구" 박영사 2006

10 지원림, "민법강의" 홍문사 2016

11 김증한, "물권법" 박영사 1997

12 이영준, "물권법" 박영사 1993

13 곽윤직, "물권법" 박영사 2000

14 이홍훈, "등기의 추정력" 법원행정처 43 : 1988

15 이진기, "등기 없는 점유시효취득의 새로운 이해" 한국민사법학회 84 : 3-35, 2018

16 양창수, "권리의 변동과 구제: 민법 2" 박영사 2011

17 엄동섭, "中間省略登記合意의 法的 性質" 민사판례연구회 (28) : 1-36, 2006

18 김대정, "不動産登記의 推定力" 중앙법학회 18 (18): 161-206, 2016

19 이진기, "「부동산 실권리자명의 등기에 관한 법률」을 다시 논함" 법학연구원 29 (29): 267-301, 2017

20 윤철홍, "‘부동산실권리자명의등기에 관한 법률’의 제정과정과 문제점" 9 : 1996

21 김재형, "2000년대 民事판례의 傾向과 흐름(債權法)" 민사판례연구회 (33) : 1089-1298, 2011