제3자에 의한 부동산임차권침해와 임차권에 기한 방해배제청구권

Abstract

This study deals with the Infringement of the leasehold interest on real property by the third party and the Claim for Removal of Disturbance based on the leasehold. In case of violation or disturbance of the leasehold interest on real property by the third party, it comes into question whether the leaser may exercise the Claim for Removal of Disturbance based on the leasehold. Since it is stipulated that real right refers to a right to directly control a certain thing and the holder of a real right may claim removal of disturbance against the disturber when realization of the real right is disturbed, there is no objection to accept that the real right holder can have the claim for a real right, if realization of the real right is disturbed. The issue is whether the tenant may claim removal of disturbance based on the bond of leasehold if the leasehold interest on real property is disturbed by the third party. The academic theories and precedents have not been consistent on this issue. Unlike the past when the precedents under the Civil Law accepted the Claim for Removal of Disturbance based on the bond due to inviolability of bonds, the precedents under the current Civil Code are not clarifying positions on acceptance of the Claim for Removal of Disturbance. Rather, it can be considered that the current precedents take the affirmative position on the Claim for Removal of Disturbance about the leasehold interest on real property under a real right in the method of public notice. The issue of acceptance of the Claim for Removal of Disturbance on the claim infringement cannot be discussed with the effects of all bonds, acknowledged by nature of bonds, and the Claim for Removal of Disturbance should be discussed by limiting the case to Infringement of the leasehold interest on real property. Therefore, if the leasehold interest on real property of the creditor is violated or disturbed by the third party, the Claim for Removal of Disturbance based on the leasehold interest on real property may not be acknowledged from the general character of the bonds as bonds are, in principle, a relative right. However, if the leasehold interest on real property has an opposing power to the third party or acquire occupation, the Claim for Removal of Disturbance may be acknowledged based on the absolute dominance of the ownership, which is the source of bonds. This may be because if bonds have an opposing power, the power may be exercised not only to the assignee of the object to be leased but also to the third party except for the assignee, including exclusivity and priority of use of the object. For the leasehold that acquired occupancy, the state of occupancy can also be regarded as being assigned the control power of the ownership to the object so that the leasehold became strengthened. Therefore, it may be considered that only the leasehold interest on real property under a real right in the method of public notice may exercise the Claim for Removal of Disturbance against the third party, if the third party illegally occupies the leased property.