경매절차에서 현황과 공부가 불일치한 건물의 처리방안

Abstract

In the auction procedure, the drawing or area attached to the building ledger and the real estate register of a building for auction object is often interchanged with other buildings. If this disagreement is not resolved, it is a question of whether the object of the auction is a registered building or a building with the front door mark occupied by the debtor. In this regard, it seems that there has been confusion in the conventional practice, but in recent years, buildings recorded in the registers are often treated as auction objects. However, in most cases, the debtor, who thinks that the building marked on the front door is a registered building, purchases the said building as a specific product and occupies it. In such a case, it is difficult to assume that the debtor purchased a separate registered building. If so, under the Korean law system where the public confidence of the registration is not recognized, it is impossible to acquire the ownership of the building recorded in the register on the sole basis of the fact that the transfer of ownership is registered. Accordingly, such registration does not correspond to the substantive relationship and is close to the registration of invalidity of cause. In addition, when the owners of each building, including the debtor, recognize that they own a building that displays the front door they have purchased and occupied, the problem is often solved by simply changing the drawing on the register. Nevertheless, uniformly treating the building in the register as an auction object does not meet the intentions of the parties and causes many problems in the process after the real estate delivery order. Therefore, on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling on this, I try to find a desirable solution from a practical point of view that is consistent with both formal elements and substantive legal principles.