慣習法上 法定地上權에 關한 硏究 = (A) Study on the Legal Superficies in Customary Law

토지와 건물의 관습법상 법정지상권을 연구했다.

Under the Korean legal system, a land and building are regarded and traded as separate real estate.Thus, different individuals can own a piece of land and the property on it, even though the same person once owned both of them.Naturally, a building owner must secure the right to use a piece of land in order to exercise his or her ownership of the building on it; superficies and the right to rent a house are representative of the right to use a piece of land.A building owner would have no difficulty in exercising the right to use the land when there exists a prior agreement between himself or herself and the landowner.In a case where the building owner did not, however, secure the right to use the land, the landowner is able to claim removal of the building if he or she so wishes.And if this were the case, the legal rights of the building owner would be seriously undermined, entailing significant losses both socially and economically.Against this backdrop, the Korean law and judiciary precedentsrecognize legal superficies, provided that certain preconditions are met, in an effort to prevent removal of a building over which land and building owners have no agreement on its usage.

Along with special law, Article 305 and 366 of the Korean civil code stipulate regulations related to legal superficies.Aside from these statutory laws, legal superficies have been guaranteed in customary law by precedents.When the owners of a land and building are not a single person, the building owner is granted the legal superficies over the landowner by customary law, preventing the building from being removed unless there is a special agreement between the two owners on the removal of the building In the West, a building and land are considered a single entity of real estate whereas both the Korean and Japanese civil codes regard the two as separate portions of real estate.What is problematic is that legal superficies under customary law have been guaranteed on the basis of legal precedents without the existence of clear definitions.Moreover, legal superficies have yet to be firmly established as law -- unlike other property rights translated into statutory laws at the time of enactment of the Korean civil code.Recently, however, there has been heated debate over the basis and legitimacy of the legal superficies in customary law, and consequently legalization of the legal superficies is being considered by those who are currently working on the revision of the civil code.

This paper aims to examine the basis and legitimacy of the legal superficies in customary law and present relevant precedents in an orderly manner.Chapter one, as an introduction, gives a thumbnail sketch of the purposes and scope of this paper, while chapter two studies the significance, history, legalization examples and theoretical background of legal superficies in customary law.Chapter three discusses the conditions to be met in exercising the right to legal superficies in customary law, while introducing relevant precedents.Chapter four deals with the contents of legal superficies under customary law such as its scope, continuation period and reference, while chapter five examines institutional registration and the opposing power of the legal superficies.Chapter six discusses various complicated problems arising from the disposal of legal superficies and chapter seven deals with the much-disputed issue of institutional legitimacy of legal superficies in customary law.Chapter eight briefly examines the issues related to the theory of making law.Finally, chapter nine analyzes the future direction and theoretical basis of legal superficies under customary law, based on what has been mentioned in previous chapters.

제1장 序論 = 1 제1절 연구의 목적 = 1 제2절 연구의 방법 = 3 제2장 慣習法上의 法定地上權의 槪念 = 6 제1절 의의와 연혁 = 6 제2절 입법례 = 7 제3절 관습법상 법정지상권의 법적 성격 = 10 제4절 인정근거 = 10 1. 문제의 소재 = 10 (1) 물권법정주의 = 10 (2) 문제의 소재 = 11 2. 견해의 대립 = 11 (1) 관습법에서 구하는 견해 = 11 (2) 법원에 의해 형성되었다는 견해 = 13 (3) 민법 제305조 유추적용설 = 14 (4) 민법 제366조 확장해석론 = 15 3. 검토 = 16 제3장 慣習法上 法定地上權의 成立要件= 19 제1절 토지와 건물이 동일인의 소유에 속하였을 것 = 19 1. 동일 소유 = 20 (1) 양도담보와 동일소유 = 21 (2) 토지 또는 건물이 공유인 경우 = 22 1) 논의의 전제 = 23 2) 토지만이 공유인 경우 = 24 3) 건물만이 공유인 경우 = 25 4) 토지와 건물이 모두 공유인 경우 = 26 5) 구분소유적 공유관계 = 27 (3) 가등기의 경우 = 29 (4) 미등기와 무허가건물 = 30 (5) 명의신탁의 경우 = 31 (6) 토지의 소유자가 건물주에 대해 토지 사용허락을 해주었고 건물소유주는 그 토지에 소유권없이 토지사용 승낙에 기하여 건물을 건축한 경우 = 31 1) 사실관계 = 32 2) 판시 = 32 3) 평석 = 32 2. 동일소유의 시기 3= 3 (1) 일반론 = 33 (2) 강제경매의 경우 = 34 (3) 가등기의 경우 = 35 (4) 귀속재산의 경우 = 35 (5) 구민법과 관련하여 동일소유의 시기가