不動産의 二重讓渡에 관한 硏究 = Study of The Double Transfer of Real Estate

부동산 이중양도의 효력과 매수인의 보호 방안을 연구했다.

About the double transfer of real estate from a point of law, there have been many discussions that what case loses effect, and how we can protect a good-intended person who acquired real estate from the 2nd buyer, and the 1st buyer from a point of illegal origin allowance. A case show if the double transfer would be invalidated, the fact that the 2nd buyer just knew the double transfer is not sufficinet for its illegality, obvious reasons for the 2nd buyer's illegal actions must be proved such as he participated in the malpractice act of a transferer adopting " the positive malpractice act involvement" Generally, as in the many cases, they have made decisions considering the objective state of use of the object(specially as the case of maintenance), the properness nad speciality of the 2nd buying act, the 2nd transfer contracting process, the 2nd buyer's purpose, and the special relationship between the 1st and 2nd transferer if they regard the double transfer as an antisocial law act. But the case theory has many hard points of settlement. First, the 1st buyer doesn't have a right of subrogation because the civil law 103 provision is a double-faced agaist the civil law 746 provision," illegal origin allowance provision" Second the return call of a transferer or the 1st buyer will be invalid because of the pre-judgement power in the case that the ownership transfer registry from transferer to the 2nd buyer has been made by the judgement.

It's difficult to consider the judgement as losing effect or a review just because the transfer acts are againt the public order and morals. Finally if the double transfer loses effect for it violates the civil law 103 provision, it means that this act falls under the entire invalidity so a good-will person who acquired a real estate from a 2nd buyer. The theories are divided with two sides from it's points of view. One points of view are these theories.

the appication abatement theory restrics the application extent of illegal origin allowance protecting the 1st buyer. Establishment restriction theory restrics strictly it's meaning about the range over the civil law act 103 provision adopting the criteria of the illegal extent of the 746 provision.

Ilegal comparison penalty theory compares the 1st and 2nd buyer's illegality and restrics establishment of the illegal origin allowance only if the 2nd buyer's illegality is much stronger. Fom the other point of view, the double transfer is not the antisocial law act. There are fraudulent injury recal theory that the mere credit infringement of the ownership transfer by the 2nd buyer, and the original state recovery theory. Conclusion As we've seen, the double transfer is invalidated for it's unsocial law act only if the 2nd buyer participates in a transferer's malpractice positively and we must protect the 1st buyer recognizing the return claim if the illegality of the 2nd buyers over a transferer is considerably strong by illegal comparison penalty theory. and it is reasonable that the pre-acquired person must be judged by the special provision such as the civil law act 108 provision 2 clause.

제 1 장 서론 = 1 제 1 절 연구의 목적 = 1 제 2 절 연구의 범위 = 2 Ⅰ. 부동산의 이중양도 = 2 Ⅱ. 제1양수인과 제2양수인 사이의 민사법적 관계 = 4 제 3 절 연구의 방법 = 4 제 2 장 비교법적 고찰 = 6 제 1 절 비교법적 고찰의 목적 = 6 제 2 절 일본 = 6 제 3 절 프랑스 = 7 제 4 절 독일 = 7 제 5 절 영국 = 8 제 6 절 종합적 고찰 = 9 Ⅰ. 법률구성의 측면 = 9 Ⅱ. 제1양수인 보호의 요건 = 10 제 3 장 부동산의 이중양도와 반사회적 법률행위 = 11 제 1 절 이중양도와 반사회성 기준 = 11 제 2 절 이중양도와 반사회적 법률행위에 관한 판례의 분석 = 12 Ⅰ. 제2양도행위가 무효가 아니라고 한 사례 = 12 1. 통상의 이중양도 = 12 가. 제2양도가 무효라고 인정하려면 충분하고 명백한 이유가 있어야 한다고 판시한 판례 = 12 나. 양도인이 제2양수인에게 매수를 권유한 경우 = 13 다. 양도인과 제2양수인이 제2양도계약 체결 후에야 이중양도 사실을 안 경우 = 14 라. 제1양수인이 제2양수인에게 매수하지 말라고 한 경우 = 15 마. 본래의 의미의 이중매매(이중양도)에 해당한다고 보기 어렵다고 한 경우 = 16 2. 명의수탁자의 부당처분이 무효가 되기 위한 요건에 해당하지 않는 경우 = 17 3. 판례의 검토 = 18 Ⅱ. 제2양도행위가 무효라고 한 사례 = 18 1. 통상의 이중양도 = 19 가. 공회당 부지를 이중으로 양도한 경우 = 19 나. 기타 제2양수인이 양도인의 배임행위에 적극 가담한 경우 = 20 다. 제2양수인의