부동산 집행절차상 유치권의 문제점 및 개선방안 = Problems and their improvement methods of a Lien in Real Estate Execution Procedure

부동산 집행·경매 절차에서 유치권의 문제와 개선방안을 연구했다.

A lien in a real-estate auction procedure denotes a right that someone who possesses another's object may keep the object until an obligation for the object has been paid. In other words, it denotes a right that someone who has some money to be repaid from an owner of an object may keep the object till the money has been repaid.

As shown in the present paper, the requirements for establishment in real-estate auction are as follows: 1) an object should be real estate; 2) an obligation of a lien holder should be created on real-estate at auction; 3) a relevant obligation should be in time for performance; 4) a lien holder should be a person who possesses real-estate at auction; and 5) there should be no legal action in agreements to exclude origination of lien. Obviously, the lien become so valid when being realized. It is the right to be claimed to anyone who is a lien holder, a purchaser, a successful bidder, etc.

Particularly, the successful bidder may receive the possession if the total amount of obligation of the lien holder is all repaid. The right to be preferentially performed similar to a fixed collateral right is actually given. Moreover, the lien holder may put the relevant object up at auction and apply the object to payment for a debt in certain circumstances. There are generally two cases that the lien is unfairly abused.

First, it is a case that, using a handicap of an owner indicating that a purposeful object (an object for sale at auction) is auctioned off at a giveaway price, a creditor is oppressing an obligator unfairly while reporting a false lien or claiming a debt larger than the actual. Second, it is a case that an owner of an object for sale at auction reports a false lien in the name of the owner's spouse or relatives.

The second case is performed in order for the owner of the object for sale at auction to make a successful bid for the object at a cheaper price after sharp decrease of the lowest price offered by a bidder, in other words, to reacquire the object of lien at a cheaper price while a debt is written off. The first case may be a case in which the creditor misuses the lien and the second may be one in which the owner misuses the lien.

In a countermeasure for the false lien, as the lien is formally established if the lien holder starts to take possession of the object while claiming credit without verification procedures of identification of actual credit relation or registration, a plurality of false liens (or the lien reported at exceeding credit) is prevalent in actual examples of auction. They have been mainly concluded by forming mutual consent of a successful bidder and a lien holder at a proper price without separate legal restraints hereupon till now. Such custom has made the idea prevalent that people are aiming at excessive profits in case of report or they don't care even though the report isn't admitted.

In case that a false lien is claimed at auction, people who want to make a successful bid expect additional burden as much as reported amount for the lien, it results in reduction at an auctioned price of the object, accordingly it leads to all damages to an execution creditor and a debtor.

Due to these problems, the Court of Justice has took a strong attitude toward the false lien, and recently district courts have judged that such act is an obstacle for proper price formation and fair free competition toward people who make a false report even though they have no construction cost or know the lien isn't established and cases of actual prison sentences have been increasing by application of the crime on interference of auction and bid under Article 315 of the Criminal Code. The actual circumstance is that some cases have come under suspicion of an attempt to cheat in addition to hereupon.

Moreover, if the fact can be identified that the price for successful bid has been unfairly reduced due to the false lien, damages can be claimed due to illegal acts in civil affairs, accordingly, it is expected that, as the number of report of lien itself is reduced, the number of report of false lien is considerably reduced. Accordingly, the final point of settlement for the lien depends on the sincereness.

Generally, according to precedents of legal battles for the lien, the establishment of the lien and the credit have been synthetically judged by regarding many considerations that, whether the lien is accurate credit that has been generated from genuine constructions, whether possession has been legally performed, whether there is a connection with an object for sale at auction, whether retention of the lien has been legally performed in case of lease of the lien holder, whether there is sincereness in bank statements for deposit and payment performed in construction agreements and under construction.

Accordingly, it can be judged that joy and sorrow in results of law suits depend on who's submitting supporting evidence through attack and defense under law suit. The present paper showed several remedies for the lien that has been currently questioned by consideration of necessity of clear analysis for the lien due to risk through precedents and case studies on the lien.

Particularly, it focused its efforts on interception of dangerous elements in advance by easily understanding problems that have been actually shown in the lien such as obligation of report of the lien, introduction of registration system, revision of real estate registration law, introduction of legal mortgage system, introduction of extinguishment, introduction of deposit system for cost of conversion into cash, improvement of formal survey on present status, etc., and giving support to build up knowledge through them.

Moreover, it is judged that thorough preparation of an investor is required to prevent innocent victims from being damaged due to the lien, and finally great efforts are required to strengthen complementary measures to right relation of the lien.

제1장 서 론 1 제1절 문제의 제기 1 제2절 연구 목적 2 제3절 연구의 방법 및 범위 4 제2장 유치권의 의의와 효력 5 제1절 유치권의 개념 5 1. 의 의 5 2. 성 격 5 3. 인정근거 10 4. 동시이행항변권과 비교 11 5. 각국의 유치권의 입법례 14 제2절 유치권의 성립요건 17 1. 타인 소유의 물건에 대한 채권 18 2. 채권과 목적물과의 견련관계 18 3. 변제기가 도래한 채권 21 4. 목적물의 점유 21 5. 유치권자와 매각부동산과의 관계 25 제3절 유치권이 성립되는 경우 그 효력 25 1. 유치권자의 유치권 25 2. 유치권자의 경매권 25 3. 유치권자의 우선변제권 26 4. 유치권자의 과실수취권 26 5. 유치권자의 유치물사용권 26 6. 유치권자의 비용상환청구권 27 7. 유치권자의 선관주의의무 27 8. 별제권 27 제3장 부동산 집행절차상의 유치권 28 제1절 민사집행절차와 유치권 28 1. 민사집행의 종류 28 2. 민사집행절차 28 3. 민사집행절차에서의 유치권 29 4. 유치권과 이해관계인의 관계 30 5. 압류절차 33 6. 현금화절차 33 7. 채권신고의 최고 34 8. 배당요구 35 9. 매각대금의 납부와 소유권이전등기 등의 촉탁 36 10. 유치권자의 배당순위와 배당방법 37 제2절 유치권의 대항력 39 1. 서 설 39 2. 인수주의의 의미 41 3. 부동산의 물적 부담의 소멸과 인수의 범위 43 4. 매수인의 대책 43 5. 부동산경매에서 압류⋅유치권⋅저당권 상호간의 효력의 한계 44 6. 유치권의 항변사실 47 7. 대항력에 관한 판례 태도 48 제4