등기청구권에 관한 연구

부동산 권리변동에 따른 등기청구권의 법적 성격을 연구했다.

The Civil Law stipulates that registration should be made in principle by the method of public notice of changes in real estate rights, while the Korean Real Estate Registration Act stipulates that joint applications should be made in principle when applying for registration. Therefore, if a registration is not made, the right to request cooperation, namely, the right to claim registration, will arise. The right to apply for registration arises from a variety of causes, and the legal nature of the right varies depending on the causes, and various legal problems related to this have occurred.

However, the Korean Civil Code does not provide for the cause and nature of the right to register, except for Article 621, which relates to the right to lease real estate, so the theory examines the problems in various cases. Among them, the case of a right to claim registration which occurs especially in the case of a change in real rights due to a juristic act and a right to claim registration which occurs in the case of a prescription for acquisition of possession has become a problem.

This paper examines the significance of registration claims, the nature and nature of registration claims as well as the parties, extinctive prescriptions, the exercise of registration claims, and the registration and claim for registration which omits middle and middle. In addition, we examined the cases of material rights fluctuations due to legal acts and the cases of the statute of limitations on the acquisition of possession, which arise from the cases of registration claims. Problems arising from registered claims in the case of changes in real rights caused by legal action are what the causes and characteristics of them are.

The theory is divided into three theories; one is a claim on a claim, another is a real right on a claim, and the other is that states that a claim is both a claim on a claim and a real right; however, the theory on a claim on a claim is generally accepted. Even in judicial precedents, the claim on a claim is still considered valid.

However, according to the claimant's claim on a claim, the claimant shall be deemed to be subject to extinctive prescription, although the precedent falls on extinctive prescription as a claim on a claim, when the buyer delivers the object from the seller and uses it for profit, it is expected that the statute of limitations will not expire on the assumption that someone is exercising his right to register.

However, if the acquirer is using and making profits by transferring the object, the seller acknowledges his obligation to register the transfer of ownership of the Thing to the buyer, unless there are special grounds therefor; It is reasonable to think that extinctive prescription will be suspended. The cause and nature of the registration claim arising in the case of the prescription for acquisition of possession are divided into two theories, one is the claim on claims and the other is the claim on real rights, but the claim on claims is considered valid.

The precedent also regards the claim as a claim theory, applies the party theory, and considers that the right to register can be exercised against the owner of the registry when the statute of limitations on possession was completed. However, a party to a registration claim arising in the case of an acquisitive prescription shall be a party to the registration who is the holder of the right in the registry upon the commencement of the possession of the person who has completed the acquisitive prescription.

If ownership changes after that, a third party may not be the subject party of the right to request registration, regardless of whether the period of prescription for acquisition has expired or not. However, in this case, the current owner shall still be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right to claim registration under the new prescription for acquisition of possession after 20 years have passed since the acquisition of ownership.