不動産 二重賣買에 관한 立法論的 考察 - A Legislative Study on the Double Sale of Real Estate -
A Legislative Study on the Double Sale of Real Estate
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
After the seller sells their real estate to the first purchaser, the seller goes on to conclude a separate contract with a second purchaser and completes a registration of transfer of ownership. This kind of case is called a double sale of real estate. Generally speaking, the main party who is to be protected against double sale of real estate is the first purchaser. According to various views and case studies, they take on the antisocial nullification perspective and states that double sale of real estate falls under the category of Civil Law No. 103 antisocial law action and will therefore become void. This void is considered absolute and cannot be contested even by an innocent third party. As a result, the innocent party who had purchased the property in question from the second purchaser cannot be protected. Antisocial nullification perspective, taking on by the case, has been the support to protect the first assignee. That is following by our Civil Law which select the formalism on transfer of real rights. But as previously stated, antisocial nullification perspective has a lot of problems and other theories which show up in order to solve the problems don't do them perfectly either. So restitution perspective by tort is supposed to be the most valid view as of now, but it still has the problems under the construction of Civil Law which takes on the principle of pecuniary compensation for damage. Finally for solving the various problems from the antisocial double sale, it is more valid to provide explicitly that restitution as a compensation for damage is possible like German Civil Law. In these aspects, the revised bill of Civil Law No. 394-1, 'Compensation for damage is done by money. But creditor can claim the restitution if there are proper reasons.', is judged well-timed provision. Especially antisocial double sale might be the typical case to admit the restitution as a exception of the pecuniary compensation for damage.
Abstract
After the seller sells their real estate to the first purchaser, the seller goes on to conclude a separate contract with a second purchaser and completes a registration of transfer of ownership. This kind of case is called a double sale of real estate. Generally speaking, the main party who is to be protected against double sale of real estate is the first purchaser. According to various views and case studies, they take on the antisocial nullification perspective and states that double sale of real estate falls under the category of Civil Law No. 103 antisocial law action and will therefore become void. This void is considered absolute and cannot be contested even by an innocent third party. As a result, the innocent party who had purchased the property in question from the second purchaser cannot be protected. Antisocial nullification perspective, taking on by the case, has been the support to protect the first assignee. That is following by our Civil Law which select the formalism on transfer of real rights. But as previously stated, antisocial nullification perspective has a lot of problems and other theories which show up in order to solve the problems don't do them perfectly either. So restitution perspective by tort is supposed to be the most valid view as of now, but it still has the problems under the construction of Civil Law which takes on the principle of pecuniary compensation for damage. Finally for solving the various problems from the antisocial double sale, it is more valid to provide explicitly that restitution as a compensation for damage is possible like German Civil Law. In these aspects, the revised bill of Civil Law No. 394-1, 'Compensation for damage is done by money. But creditor can claim the restitution if there are proper reasons.', is judged well-timed provision. Especially antisocial double sale might be the typical case to admit the restitution as a exception of the pecuniary compensation for damage.
참고문헌 (30)
- 남윤봉, "한국재산법총론" (2010), 동방문화사
- 곽윤직, "민법총칙" (1997), 박영사
- 김상용, "민법총칙" (1994), 법문사
- 김형배, "민법학강의" (2009), 신조사
- 김형배, "채권각론" (1997), 신조사
- 법무부, "민법(재산편) 개정 자료집", ~ (2004)
- 윤진수, "주석 민법총칙(2)" (2001), 한국사법행정학회
- 이영준, "한국민법론" (2005), 박영사
- 송덕수, "신민법강의" (2009), 박영사
- 송덕수, "민법주해 9권" (1992), 박영사
- 지원림, "민법강의" (2009), 홍문사
- 법무부, "민법(재산편) 개정 자료집", ~ (2004)
- 강태성, "이중매매의 법률관계", 재산법연구, 22(1), pp.1~32 (2005), 한국재산법학회
- 고상용, "부동산의 이중매매와 제1매수인의 보호", 고시연구, (177) (1988), 고시연구사
- 김상묵, "부동산의 이중양도에 관한 고찰", 중앙법학, (4) (2001), 중앙법학회
- 김웅렬, "부동산의 이중매매에 관한 연구", 사법논집, 15 (1984), 법원행정처
- 김증한, "부동산 이중매매의 반사회성", 저스티스, 10(1) (1972), 한국법학원
- 윤진수, "부동산의 이중양도와 원상회복", 민사법학, (6) (1986), 사법행정학회
- 윤진수, "부동산의 이중양도에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.1993
- 윤진수, "제삼자의 채권침해와 부동산의 이중양도", 사법논집, 16 (1985), 법원행정처
- 윤진수, "반사회적 부동산 이중양도에 있어서 전득자의 지위", 법조, 47(9) (1998), 법조협회
- 이용훈, "반사회적 이중양도와 불법원인급여, 민사법의 제문제(온산방순원선생고희기념)" (1984), 박영사
- 정상현, "부동산의 이중매매와 제1매수인의 보호", 비교사법, 7(1) (2000), 한국비교사법학회
- 정상현, "부동산 이중매매의 법률관계", 판례연구, 19(1) (2005), 서울지방변호사회
- 홍춘의, "부동산의 이중매매와 제1매수인의 보호, 부동산법학의 제문제(김기수교수화갑기념 논문집)" (1992), 박영사
- 西宮和夫, "民法總則" (2002), 弘文堂
- 石田喜久夫, "物權法" (1994), 靑林書院
- 石田喜久夫, "民法總則" (1993), 靑林書院
- 我妻榮, "債權各論(下)" (1974), 岩波書店
- 鎌田薰, "不動産二重賣買における第二買主の惡意と取引の安全", 比較法學, 9(2) (1974)
