부동산 이중매매에 관한 연구 : 한국민법과 중국민법의 비교를 중심으로

한국과 중국의 부동산 이중매매와 소유권 이전을 비교했다.

Pertaining to the alteration of real estate in Korea and China, it is valid only if formalism is applied and registered by means of announcement. The ownership in dual sales goes to the buyer who first registered; therefore, the second buyer can also claim the ownership if he is the first person to register. In this case, the protection for the first buyer becomes problematic; as a result, not only the validation of the legal act between the first buyer and the second buyer but also the protection for the bona fide buyer who acquired real estate from the second buyer causes problems.

The most striking difference in the real estate dual sales lies in the acknowledgement of bona fide acquisition. In China, the public faith force of the real estate registration is acknowledged; therefore, whether the business contract between the seller and the second buyer is valid or not, the bona fide buyer can claim the ownership. However, in Korea, the public faith force of the real estate registration is not acknowledged, so the bona fide acquisition of real estate is not recognized. In accordance with cases and viewpoints in Korea, dual sales are invalidated if they are against the civil law 103 provision and antisocial.

Therefore, it is absolutely invalidated whether a person registers as the second buyer or the bona fide buyer. Simultaneously, the seller has the right to cancel the transfer registration between the second buyer and the bona fide buyer, which can also be performed by the first buyer. The improvement projects for the real estate dual sales in Korea and China are as follows: 1) In Korean antisocial dual sales, if he acquires the real estate transfer through inducing, tempting, or requesting, the second buyer’s illegality is considered worse than the seller’s malpractice.

Additionally, the seller can demand the second buyer to return the illegitimate benefits according to the civil law 746 provision. Under this circumstance, the legitimate bona fide buyer is unable to be protected by the law, which needs to be resolved by way of legislation reasoning. In other words, in real estate dual sales, the seller and the first buyer can require the second buyer to return the illegitimate benefits in accordance with the civil law 746 provision, which cannot be confronted by the legitimate bona fide buyer.

As a consequence, it is suggested that there should be a regulation protecting the legitimate bona fide buyer. In short, the basic theoretical framework in Korea is to protect the first buyer’s right, but ignore the bona fide buyer’s. This study suggests a new theoretical framework in which not only the right of the first buyer but the bona fide buyer as well can be protected. In another word, the framework is supposed to develop towards acknowledging the public faith force of registration. 2) Based upon the current civil law in China, the prerequisite of the alteration of real estate is registration.

If the second buyer with good intention registers first, he can claim the ownership to the real estate since the alteration of real estate is invalidated without registration. Although the seller authorizes the first buyer to use the house, the first buyer still cannot acquire the ownership if the second buyer registered first; otherwise, it is deemed to the damaging of the existing living order. The improvement projects for the legal principle of dual sales are to establish the credit right in rem on the basis of possession.

A typical example of the credit right in rem is the principle of ‘sales not devastating lease.’ The legal principle is to protect the relatively vulnerable lessee, the existing stable living order with the party establishing legal rights, and the possession with legal rights. Likewise, it is reasonable in law to endow the first buyer using the real estate with credit so as to protect his legitimate living order. Consequently, it is suggested that, in order to protect the first buyer’s real estate, the second buyer’s right acquired through registering should be denied to some extent.

제1장 서론 1 제1절 연구의 목적 1 제2절 연구의 범위와 방법 2 제2장 이중매매의 법적 구성 5 제1절 이중매매의 성립 5 Ⅰ. 이중매매의 개념 5 Ⅱ.개념의 성립배경 5 Ⅲ. 계약자유의 원칙 6 Ⅳ. 동산과 부동산 이중매매 차이점 9 제2절 이중매매의 당사자간의 법적 지위 10 Ⅰ. 매도인과 제1매수인 10 Ⅱ. 매도인과 제2매수인 11 Ⅲ. 제1매수인과 제2매수인 12 제3장 한국의 부동산 이중매매법률관계 13 제1절 부동산 이중매매가 유효일 때 13 Ⅰ. 소유권의 귀속관계 13 Ⅱ. 매도인의 채무불이행 책임 14 1. 이행불능 14 2. 계약의 해제 16 3. 손해배상책임 17 4. 제1매수인의 대상청구권 18 Ⅲ. 채권자취소권 15 제2절 부동산 이중매매가 무효일 때 21 Ⅰ. 이중매매의 무효요건 21 1. 판례 21 2. 학설 24 Ⅱ. 무효인 이중매매로 인한 급부의 회수방법 25 1. 이중매와 불법원인급여 25 2. 채권자 대위권 27 3. 불법행위책임에 기한 손해배상청구권 30 가. 매도인의 불법행위책임 30 나. 제2매수인의 불법행위책임 32 제3절 선의의 전득자 34 제4장 중국의 부동산 이중매매의 법률관계 36 제1절 부동산 이중매매가 유효일 때 36 Ⅰ. 소유권의 귀속관계 36 Ⅱ. 매도인의 채무불이행 책임 37 1. 이행불능 37 2. 계약의 해제 38 3. 손해배상책임 40 4. 대상청구권 41 Ⅲ.채권자취소권 42 제2절 부동산 이중매매가 무효일 때 43 Ⅰ. 이중매매의 무효요건 43 Ⅱ. 법률구제 46 1. 이중매매와 불법원인급여 46 2. 채권자 대위권 47 3. 불법행위책임