민법 제366조의 법정지상권 = Statutory Superficies of Article 366 of the Civil Code

민법상 법정지상권의 성립과 효력을 연구했다.

Any building cannot be feasible unless it is based on a land. Due to such a close spatial relation between land and building, both may well be a group bound together by a common destiny in the real estate transactions. In the Western Europe, since the famous legal maxim of the Roman law ‘the structure on a land is subordinated to the land’, such nations as Germany and France revert the building or structure on other’s land to the owner of the land, and therefore, the legal problems would be cleared up simply. The custom of Korea saw to it that since the site should be dependent on the house, it treated the land and the house thereupon as a whole.

Nevertheless, the legislators of the current Civil Code did not sufficiently review our custom as well as the problems arising when building and land should be handled separately, and thus, succeeded Article 388 of the Japanese Civil Code or the statutory superficies. Meanwhile, Japan saw to it that the Article 388 of their Civil Code was not complete in terms of the requisite for its establishment, etc., and has supplemented its insufficient contents with the theories and judicial precedents.

Korea has faced similar problems because she succeeded the Japanese article intact, and has complemented the insufficient contents with the supreme court decisions and theories. The Article 366 of our Civil Code specifies that where the land and the building on it belong to different persons by reason of the auction sale of the mortgaged property, the owner of the land is deemed to have created a superficies for the owner of the building. And thus, it admits that in case the land and the building thereupon have been sold separately due to the auction sale of the mortgaged property, a statutory superpieces would be established for the benefit of the building owner.

Since the buyer of the building owing to the auction could not have an opportunity to make a contract for establishment of a superpieces for his or her building, the law admits his/her rights to use the land for protection of him/her. Namely, Article 366 of our Civil Code limits the ownership of the land in order to help protect the national economic loss or the demolition of the building. This study aims at addressing the problems of the statutory superficies of Article 366 of our Civil Code and their solutions.

To this end, this study examined the concept of and conditions for the statutory superfieces, its attributes, its relation with the registration, the legal relations, its relation with the blanket auction, 2013 draft amendment of the Ministry of Justice, etc., and then, suggests a draft amendment of our Civil Code. Particularly regarding the conditions for the establishment of the statutory superfieces, this study examined the theories centering around the supreme court decision 2003. Dec.

18 Verdict 98Da43601 that had not admitted the statutory superfieces in case a joint mortgage was established on land and building and then, the building would be demolished and a new building would be constructed on the same land. In addition, this study reviewed the majority opinions and the theories of accessory, and thereupon, opined that the theory of appendant nature would be more reasonable for the relationship between statutory superficies and the ownership of the building. In addition, this study examined the relationship between the theory of appendant nature and the registration.

제1장 머리말 1 제1절 연구의 목적 1 제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 4 제2장 법정지상권의 개념 6 제1절 지상권 개설 6 제2절 법정지상권의 의의와 법률규정 8 제3절 인정이유 10 I. 학 설 10 1. 제1설 10 2. 제2설 11 3. 제3설 12 II. 판 례 12 III. 검 토 14 제4절 입법례 15 I. 독 일 17 II. 프랑스 18 III. 일 본 19 제5절 연 혁 21 I. 입법경위 21 1. 조선시대 토지와 건물의 소유권 체계 21 2. 일본민법의 토지와 건물의 이원적 소유권체계 계수 23 II. 토지와 건물의 이원적 소유권체계의 현실적 문제점 26 제3장 민법 제366조 법정지상권의 성립요건 28 제1절 저당권 설정시 그 토지에 건물의 존재 28 I. 학설 29 1. 긍정설 29 2. 부정설 29 II. 판례 30 III. 검토 31 IV. 관련 문제 검토 32 1. 토지와 건물에 공동저당권이 설정된 후 그 건물이 멸실 되고 신축된 경우 32 2. 저당권설정 후에 건물이 멸실되어 증축․개축․재축·신축된 경우 54 3. 미등기건물 또는 무허가 건물 56 4. 법정지상권을 인정하는 특약을 한 경우 59 제2절 저당권설정 당시에 토지와 건물이 동일인의 소유일 것 60 I. 소유자의 동일성 60 II. 저당권 설정 후 소유자의 변동 61 III. 저당권 설정 후 소유자의 동일 62 IV. 토지나 건물에 공유관계의 존재 63 제3절 저당권의 설정 65 제4절 경매의 결과 토지와 건물의 소유자가 달라질 것 66 제5절 특약으로써 그 성립을 배제할 수 있는지 여부 67 I. 학설 67 II.