국유지 무단점유로 인한 변상금 관련 민법적 쟁점

국유지 무단점유에 따른 변상금의 민법적 쟁점을 연구했다.

The compensation is the equivalent to the one hundred twenty over one hundred percent money for the national properties rental fee or the amount of the landing contract, which imposed for unauthorised possessor, who uses or possesses for seeking profit without any permission for private using or the landing contract(it comes under the second clause of Article 4 of the National Property Act). It is inevitable regulation in the Public Laws, since national owned land is the only resource for the promotion the public welfare and efficient and balanced development and conversion because Korea is a thickly peopled country.

The compensation in the National Property Act is the one of the regulation in Public Laws for the efficient stewardship and conservation, which is get recognized by the constitutional validity. But the major contents about the National Property Act that is the fundamental law on the stewardship and disposition of the national properties emphasized the stewardship and disposition of the national properties only. Therefore, it is hardly comprehended the compensation by the National Property Act, which placed between the range in the public laws and civil laws, so we have to refer to the general private laws, especially Civil Law articles.

The compensation is imposed on unauthorised possession, that is the possession and using for seeking profit without any legal titles. At this point, the title means the legal statue that is extensively legitimization of the possession and the using for seeking profit, and the imposing right of compensation has lapsed of the prescription unless exercising in five years, under the first clause of Article 96 of the Law on National Finance that is the regulation for early stabilization in the domain or relation of Administrative law.

The titles in Civil Law legitimizing of the possession of the national owned land are disscussed mainly like acquisitive prescription, legal superficies under customary law, using by the co-owners' quota rights, possession by the defence right of simultaneous performance, possession of the unregistered national owned land buyer, etc. However, even if these titles are recognized, the rental fee adjustment problems between the possessor and the government still remain. Meanwhile, the government has the right the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in Civil Law the replacement of not imposing the compensation under National property Act(claim duplication).

In this case, the limit of application of the right the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment has to comply under Article 741 and the rest of Civil Law, not under first clause of Article 72 of National Property Act. But according to the character of the disposition for imposing compensation, the compensation can't claim by the way of civil suit, and the government can exercise the claim for removal of disturbance.

However, the claim for removal of disturbance is the right recognized specially as the way of restitution of unjust enrichment in the domain of restitution of the original, therefore the exercising the right of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment can't claim the restitution of the original. Through the legal disputes process over the disposition for imposing compensation, there are many cases that the opponents defence the acquisitive prescription. The meaning of unauthorised possessor defences the acquisitive prescription is that the government has neglected the stewardship of the national owned land over twenty years.

This is the reflection that efficient conservation of national owned land was not conducted well. Therefore, preventing the property loss by the acquisitive prescription and the efficient conservation and stewardship for various functions of the national owned land are dispensable. And the accurate study the real condition of the statues of the national owned land must take precedence in order for the efficient conservation and stewardship of the national owned land.

제1장 서론 1 제1절 연구의 목적 1 제2절 연구의 범위와 방법 3 제2장 변상금의 법리 5 제1절 위헌 여부 5 제2절 법적 성질 8 Ⅰ. 기속행위 8 Ⅱ. 행정처분 8 Ⅲ. 징벌적 성격 9 제3절 변상금 부과요건 9 Ⅰ. 국유재산 10 Ⅲ. 무단점유 12 1. 점유의 의의 13 2. 점유의 성립요건 14 3. 무단점유의 의미 15 4. 국유재산법상 무단점유의 범위 16 제4절 변상금 징수절차 및 승계 18 Ⅰ. 변상금 징수절차 19 Ⅱ. 변상금 승계문제 19 제5절 변상금 부과권과 소멸시효 20 Ⅰ. 서설 21 Ⅱ. 소멸시효의 공법관계에 적용여부 21 Ⅲ. 변상금 부과권의 소멸시효 24 1. 소멸시효의 대상인지 여부 24 2. 권리의 불행사(기산점) 24 3. 소멸시효기간 27 Ⅳ. 소멸시효의 효과 28 1. 민법의 경우 28 2. 공법의 경우 29 Ⅴ. 납입고지에 의한 소멸시효의 중단 30 1. 서설 30 2. 판례 31 3. 검토 31 제3장 변상금 부과에 대한 민법상의 항변 33 제1절 서설 33 제2절 점유취득시효 33 Ⅰ. 의의 33 Ⅱ. 존재이유 34 Ⅲ. 요건 35 1. 점유 35 2. 등기 44 Ⅳ. 효과 46 Ⅴ. 공물의 시효취득 가부 47 1. 학설 48 2. 판례 49 3. 중앙행정심위원회 재결례 49 4. 검토 50 Ⅵ. 일반재산의 취득시효 가부 51 Ⅶ. 행정소송 사례-대법원 1996. 11. 12. 선고 96다32959 판 결- 53 1. 사실관계 53 2. 원심판결의 요지 54 3. 대상판결의 요지 55 4. 대상판결에 대한 검토 55 Ⅷ. 행정심판 사례-중앙행정심판위원회 20