관습법상 법정지상권에 관한 고찰-대법원 2022.7.21.선고 2017다236749 전원합의체 판결-

Abstract

The Civil Law Article 279 (Contents of Superficies) A superficiary is entitled to use the land of another person for the purpose of owning buildings, other structures or trees thereon. Supreme Court precedent recognizesthe superficies under customary law. Although many academic theories criticize the problems of the superficies under customary law or suggest alternatives, the majority opinion in the target judgment states that the confidence in the legal binding power of members of society with respect to customs regarding the superficies under customary law has disappeared or that such practices are essential. It was ruled that the legal normative force of the superficies under customary law should continue to be maintained for reasons such as the inability to find any data that could be recognized as having been changed. However, even though the superficies under customary law have played a positive role in preventing socioeconomic losses due to the demolition of buildings, there is a need to continue to reexamine the superficies under customary law not only in terms of specific validity but also in terms of system consistency with other legal systems. I don't think it can be denied. As with some of the negative opinions or opposing opinions in the target judgment, when the owner of a building and land changes due to a legal act, it can be concluded that there is an implied agreement regarding the use relationship of the land, and it can be concluded that there is an implied agreement on the use relationship of the land through a compulsory auction other than a legal act. Even if the owner of the building and land changes, it is believed that there is room for implicit permission to use it. Therefore, in the former case, it is considered that the establishment of contracted land rights, lease, etc. can be recognized according to the implied agreement reached, and in the latter case, based on recognition of permission to use the land. However, if it is difficult to recognize such agreement or implied permission to use, Article 366 of the Civil Act may be applied by analogy and the statutory land right under Article 366 of the Civil Act may be recognized as an exception.