민사법적 시각에서 건축부지를 둘러싼 저당권과 상사유치권의 관계에 관한 재해석 = Reinterpretation of the relationship between the mortgage and the commercial lien surrounding the building site from the perspective of civil law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

There are many differences between commercial lien and civil lien, and there is a clear difference in experience as a requirement for establishment. In the past, problems based on this difference between the two did not occur, but recently, some problems have been mass-produced based on the difference between commercial lien and civil lien. The main problem is that if there is a mortgage on the building site or site, civil lien cannot be claimed. Recently, it is a topic that can be claimed as commercial lien on the same issue. This is because the commercial lien does not require affiliation with the building site or site among its establishment conditions, so it is possible to argue that a commercial lien can be established for the building site or site. Therefore, it is judged that the time has come to review the reasonable position of the commercial lien in relation to the mortgage.
Domestic and Japanese theories and precedents regarding the status of commercial lien, including the relationship with the mortgage in the building site or site, were reviewed. As a result, the opposition theory was judged to be a little more reasonable than other legal principles, and the following main issues were reviewed focusing on the opposition theory.
In the issue of the rational status of the commercial lien according to the opposition theory, the items to be reviewed are: First, if there is a mortgage on the land, it is reasonable to apply the position of the rivalry theory to the reasonable status of the commercial lien. In case of following the theory of opposition, in principle, the relevant commercial lien cannot be opposed against the mortgagee of the preceding site, so it is extinguished by the meridian of the object of retention, and the effect of preferential payment cannot be asserted. Second, if there is a mortgage in the building site, if it is proved that the contractor has invested in the value increase of the object and the value of the object has increased accordingly, it is reasonable to recognize the commercial lien for this increase in value. However, it is reasonable to recognize the commercial lien for the cost of the commercial lien, limited to the case where the value of the relevant object exists through appraisal, etc. for the cost incurred by the commercial lien holder. In terms of comparative law, this is reasonable when examining the legal principles of Germany, Switzerland, the United States, France, and Austria.
Matters to be reviewed on the rational status of commercial lien rights through review of Supreme Court precedents are: It is reasonable that the lienholder cannot oppose the mortgagee. In addition, in the above situation, even if a mortgage is established after a significant portion of the construction work has been completed, if the opposition theory is applied, it is reasonable to compare the time when the relevant mortgage was established and the time when the commercial lienholder occupied it in chronological order. As such, the legal theory of the opposition theory is reasonable because it can harmonize the positions of many parties, such as mortgage holders and commercial lien holders, in a balanced way in various procedures for construction work against the site.
Second, the rational position of the commercial lien on the mortgage was reviewed by comparing the mecanic's lien system with the counter-relationship theory. As a result, it is reasonable to examine the position of commercial lien on the mortgage in the land by comparing the ‘time of registration’ of the mortgage and the ‘time of commencement of possession’ of the commercial lien, not the ‘time of construction start’ of the commercial lien in chronological order.
Third, in case the commercial lien cannot be opposed to the mortgage in the case of commercial lien, the legal principle of extinction theory that the commercial lien disappears altogether is not valid. This is because there is a possibility of denying ...

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 정두진, "프랑스 민법에서의 유치권제도에 관한 소고" 법과정책연구원 4 (4): 67-90, 2012
• 2 이현석, "유치권과 점유 - 민사유치권과 상사유치권을 중심으로 -" 한국법정책학회 17 (17): 157-180, 2017
• 3 김영진, "유치권과 저당권의 효력관계" 7 : 2005
• 4 이범상, "압류부동산에 대한 유치권 행사의 효력" (3557) : 2007
• 5 이재석, "선행저당권과 상사유치권" 2018
• 6 김연우, "상사유치권에 부동산이 포함되는지 여부 및 선행 저당권자와의 관계 대상판결 : 대법원2013. 2. 28. 선고 2010다57350 판결" 대구판례연구회 22 : 2013
• 7 이철송, "상법총칙/상행위" 박영사 345-, 2022
• 8 정찬형, "상법강의(상)" 박영사 2008
• 9 이상덕 ; 서완석, "부동산의 선순위 근저당권과 상사유치권의 우열관계" 법학연구소 7 (7): 53-78, 2014
• 10 김영주, "부동산에 대한 상사유치권의 성립과 효력 - 일본 최고재판소 2017. 12. 14. 판결의 검토 -" 한국상사판례학회 33 (33): 3-45, 2020
• 11 서인겸, "부동산경매절차상 유치권의 효력에 관한 몇 가지 쟁점" 법학연구소 32 (32): 267-298, 2016
• 12 박양준, "부동산 상사유치권의 대항범위 제한에 관한 법리 : 대법원 2013. 2. 28. 선고 2010다57350 판결" 12 : 2013
• 13 이종구, "미국의 주법상의 건축공사 우선특권(Construction Lien)과 부동산 유치권의 비교법적 연구" 한국사법학회 19 (19): 583-626, 2012
• 14 송덕수, "물권법" 박영사 2009
• 15 조성민, "물권법" 두성사 2007
• 16 이은영, "물권법" 박영사 2000
• 17 최승재, "대법원의 판결로 본 은행대출과 상사유치권" 은행법학회 6 (6): 159-186, 2013
• 18 전욱, "공사수급인의 건축 부지에 대한 상사유치권의 행사 - 대법원 2008. 12. 24. 선고 2007다52706, 2007다52713 판결의 평석 -" 법학연구소 49 (49): 425-452, 2009
• 19 손종학, "건축부지에 대한 건축수급인의 상사유치권 성립 여부 - 대법원 2008.5.30.자 2007마98결정 및 2008.12.24. 선고 2007다52706, 52713 판결에 관한 평석 -" 법학연구소 50 (50): 401-430, 2009
• 20 하창효, "건축공사 수급인의 건물부지에 대한상사유치권의 성립가능성과 효력의 범위에 관한 소고" 한국주거환경학회 12 (12): 85-95, 2014
• 21 박진근, "건축계약상 수급인의 유치권제한" 한국민사법학회 (39-1) : 317-343, 2007
• 22 座談會, "近未来の抵当権とその實行手続 改正のあり方お探る" 21 (21): 2002
• 23 竹田光広, "裁判実務シリーズ10 民事執行実務の論点" 商事法務 2017
• 24 平一井雄, "民法拾遺第1卷" 新山社 2000
• 25 槇悌次, "民事と商事の留置權の特徵(上)" (648) : 10-, 1998
• 26 澤重 信, "敷地抵當權と建物請負報酬債權" (1329) : 1992
• 27 河野玄逸, "抵當權과 先取特權, 留置權과의 競合" (21) : 1995
• 28 河野玄逸, "抵當權과 先取特權, 留置權과의 競合" (21) : 1995
• 29 小林明彦, "抵當權と商事留置權" 21 (21): 1999
• 30 池田凊治, "必要費と有益費" (705) : 2013
• 31 生熊長幸, "建築請負代金債權による敷地への留置權と抵當權(下)" (1447) : 1996
• 32 山崎敏充, "建築請負代金による敷地への留置權行使" (1439) : 1996
• 33 淺生重機, "建築請負人の建築敷地に對する商事留置權の成否" (1453) : 1996
• 34 泉田榮一, "建築請負人の占有していた敷地に對する商事留置權の成否" (164) : 2002
• 35 平井一雄, "建物建築請負人の建築敷地に對する商事留置權, 民法拾遺 第1卷" 信山社 2000
• 36 鈴木禄弥, "企業と法(上)" 有斐閣 1977
• 37 坂本武憲, "不動産費用債権の担保" (1223) : 2002
• 38 松岡久和, "不動産留置権に関する立法論" (730) : 2002
• 39 Claus Ahrens, "Zivilrechtliche Zuruckbehaltungsrechte"
• 40 BaslerKomm, "ZGB, Art"
• 41 Grant S. Nelson, "Real Estate Finance Law 186" West Group 2002
• 42 Münchener, "Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch" Carl Heymanns Verlag 2009
• 43 Staudinger(Bitner), "Kommentar Zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen: Buch 2: Recht der Schuldverhältnisse" 273-, 2009
• 44 Dieter Zobl, "Das Bauhandwerkerpfandrecht de lege lata und de lege ferenda, 2" 1982
• 45 Rummel, "ABGB(오스트리아 민법 총전-Das Allgemeine Bürgerliche Gesetzbuch)Kommentar"
• 46 John G. Cameron, Jr, "A Practitioner’s Guide to Construction Law"
• 47 西口元, "1. 建物建築請負人の敷地に對する商事留置權が否定された事例" 51 (51): 2000
• 48 Philippe Simler, "-Droit civi1-Les sûretés 4" édition, la publicité foncière"