土地去來許可區域 內의 土地收用과 收用補償金에 대한 買受人의 權利 = The Expropriation of Land in the Area of Transaction by Permission and the Buyer's Right of Claim on the Substitutional Compensation Money

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In general, the Korean Supreme Court affirms that a buyer has the right of claim on the substitutional compensation money when the seller receives the money on the basis of expropriation. Such a decision is recognized by the assumption that the sales contract is valid.
But in this case, the object of sales contract is the land in the Area of Transaction by Permission. In Korea, for the restraint of speculative trade of real estate in particular area, Article 118 of Program and Utilization for National Land Development Act provides that one who shall buy or sell the land in particular area must acquire the permission of government. It also provides that the contract without such permission
should be ineffective.
The general view and judicial precedents have interpreted the Article on the basis of the Doctrine of Floating Void.1)Under this doctrine, a party could not demand to the other party the performance of the obligation, because prior to the permission, the contract does not carry it into effect. If the permission is granted, the contract shall be valid definitely. Therefore, in this case, the Supreme Court does not recognize the buyer's right of claim on the compensation money based on expropriation.
But I think that such attitudes of judicial precedents should be criticized in comparison with prior two decisions of the Supreme Court which the contract without permission should be ineffective and the buyer has a right of claim on the substitutional compensation money without legal sources in the expropriation. The following explains in detail.
The first, the Supreme Court decides that the contract without permission in particular area should be ineffective, but it also decides that the contracting parties must cooperate for getting the permission as legal obligations.2)That is to say, it affirms that the parties of contract can not refuse the performance of cooperating obligation3)and the one party must pay for damages to the other party on the basis of non-performance of cooperating obligation.4)Moreover it decides that, as unjust enrichment, the one party cannot demand the repayment of the earnest money which he had payed to the other party on the time of contract.5)And it also decides that the permission of transaction is not the "permission" of trade prohibited by law but the "authorization" toward the effect of contract.6)
However the Doctrine of Floating Void created by the Supreme Court cannot bar effectively any speculative trades, and moreover it is a theoretical repugnance. Because, while the Doctrine of Floating Void by the Supreme Court has the assumption which the contract without
permission is null and void in particular area, the Supreme Court recognizes that the parties of contract have the legal duty of cooperation for getting the permission, the refusal of repayment of the earnest money
as unjust enrichment, and the regard the "permission" as the "authorization" on the basis of the validity of contract.
Therefore it is appropriate view that the permission for transaction in special area should be the special condition for the transfer of property. I think that the contract without permission has a general validity if it meets the general qualifications, and the legal duty of cooperation for getting the permission ought to be recognized from the general validity of contract. Also I think that the contract carries it into effect definitely when the special condition is fulfilled, and therefore the obligations of contracting parties, such as payment and registration, are actualized by the acquisition of permission.
The second, the Supreme Court decides that the buyer has the right of claim on the compensation money when the seller receives the money on the basis of expropriation.7)About the origin of the decision, the Supreme Court also decides that there is no reason to deny the buyer's right, even if the Korean Civil Code does not provide the right. But, for grant a legal right to th

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 대상판결의 분석
• Ⅱ. 평석
• Ⅲ. 판결의 당부
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 金俊鎬, "履行不能의 효과로서 代償請求權" 韓國司法行政學會 (390) : 83-, 1993
• 2 丁玉泰, "流動的 缺效" 韓國司法行政學會 (379) : 25-, 1992
• 3 丁玉泰, "流動的 缺效" 韓國司法行政學會 (379) : 25-, 1992
• 4 金玟中, "流動的 無效-국토이용관리법상의 토지거래허가를 중심으로-" 法曹協會 (523) : 49-50, 2002
• 5 曺圭昌, "流動的 無效-大法院 基本判例에 대한 批判的 考察-"
• 6 丘在君, "不動産의 占有取得時效와 代償請求權, 新世紀의 民事法課題" 法元社 52-, 2001
• 7 한견우, "현대행정법강의" 新英社 209-, 2007
• 8 강인상, "토지거래허가구역 내에서의 중간생략등기의 효력"
• 9 최문기, "채권법강의 I" 세종출판사 128-, 2004
• 10 강병훈, "점유취득시효와 대상청구권" 大韓法律救助公團 (52) : 14-, 2005
• 11 박종두, "이행불능에 있어서의 대상청구권"
• 12 李垠厓, "우리 民法상 이른바 <代償請求權>의 認定" 法院行政處 26 : 205-206, 1995
• 13 崔秉祚, "로마法.民法論考" 博英社 468-469, 1999
• 14 정상현, "대상청구권의 역사적 의미와 비교법적 고찰" 한국민사법학회 (39-1) : 479-532, 2007
• 15 박규용, "대상청구권에 관한 고찰" 한국법학회 (19) : 175-190, 2005
• 16 "국토해양부"
• 17 許魯穆, "국토이용관리법상의 규제지역 내의 토지에 대하여 허가받을 것을 전제로 체결한 거래계약의 효력" 大邱地方辯護士會 7 : 181-, 1992
• 18 남하균, "공익사업용지의 협의취득과 대상청구권―대법원 1992. 5. 12. 선고 92다4581, 4598 판결을 계기로―" 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會) 11 : 315-332, 2004
• 19 安昌煥, "경매목적인 토지가 경락허가결정 이후 하천구역에 편입된 경우, 그 손실보상금에 대한 경락자의 대상청구권 및 그 소멸시효의 기산점" 釜山判例硏究會 15 : 236-, 2002
• 20 金基善, "韓國債權法總論" 法文社 156-, 1963
• 21 梁承斗, "行政行爲의 內容上 分類에 관한 考察, 現代行政과 公法理論" 博英社 379-, 1991
• 22 朴鈗炘, "行政法講義(上)" 博英社 356-, 1999
• 23 朴均省, "行政法論(上)" 博英社 267-268, 2003
• 24 柳至泰, "行政法新論" 新英社 121-, 2003
• 25 洪井善, "行政法原論(上)" 博英社 291-, 2004
• 26 金南辰, "行政法 Ⅰ" 法文社 224-, 2005
• 27 金南辰, "行政法 Ⅰ" 法文社 244-245, 1995
• 28 金鐵容, "行政法 Ⅰ" 博英社 206-207, 2008
• 29 金東熙, "行政法 Ⅰ" 博英社 290-, 2007
• 30 黃迪仁, "現代民法論 III(債權總論)" 博英社 104-, 1983
• 31 嚴東燮, "流動的 無效의 法理와 損害賠償責任" 83-, 1995
• 32 金俊鎬, "流動的 無效에 관한 判例理論" 韓國司法行政學會 (398) : 43-, 1994
• 33 鄭相鉉, "法律行爲의 要件體系와 土地去來許可" 韓國比較私法學會 15 (15): 192-, 2008
• 34 權五乘, "民法의 爭點" 法元社 230-, 1990
• 35 金俊鎬, "民法講義" 法文社 853-854, 2005
• 36 金玟中, "民法講義" 斗聖社 450-, 1997
• 37 池元林, "民法講義" 弘文社 897-, 2007
• 38 梁彰洙, "民法註解 제9권" 博英社 290-, 2007
• 39 宋德洙, "新民法講義" 博英社 884-, 2009
• 40 金庚烈, "新土地公法" 經營文化院 730-731, 1992
• 41 金在德, "土地所有權制限의 理論" 經營文化院 310-311, 1983
• 42 趙培淑, "土地去來許可를 받지 아니한 土地賣買契約의 效力" 大邱地方法院判例硏究會 3 : 126-127, 1992
• 43 李泳揆, "土地去來許可를 要하는 土地去來契約의 法理" 韓國不動産法學會 2 : 111-, 1991
• 44 金相容, "土地去來許可.申告制의 檢討"
• 45 金相容, "土地去來許可의 法理構成" (260) : 34-, 1992
• 46 李宙興, "土地去來許可에 있어서 이른바 流動的 無效에 기한 法律關係" 韓國司法行政學會 8 : 37-45, 1994
• 47 李銀榮, "土地去來許可를 조건으로 하는 賣買契約 및 賠償額 豫定의 效力" (255) : 18-21, 1991
• 48 金正道, "土地去來許可를 받지 아니한 土地賣買契約의 法律關係" 大邱判例硏究會 4 : 327-, 1995
• 49 李宙興, "土地去來許可를 받지 아니한 土地賣買契約의 效力(下)" 法曹協會 (406) : 66-, 1990
• 50 李宙興, "土地去來許可를 받지 아니한 土地賣買契約의 效力(上)" 法曹協會 (405) : 47-, 1990
• 51 吳昌洙, "土地去來許可를 받지 아니한 去來當事者間의 法律關係" (300) : 16-, 1995
• 52 金熙泰, "土地去來許可地域內의 土地에 대한 去來許可 前의 二重讓渡와 背任罪의 成否" 法曹協會 44 (44): 114-115, 1995
• 53 金相容, "土地去來許可制에 관한 流動的 無效의 法理"
• 54 陳英光, "土地去來許可制에 관한 私法的 考察" 仁川地方辯護士會 62-, 1993
• 55 孔淳鎭, "土地去來許可制" 韓國土地法學會 (12) : 169-, 1997
• 56 金相容, "土地去來許可.申告制에 관한 考察(II)"
• 57 康文鍾, "土地去來許可(國土利用管理法)를 받지 않고 締結한 賣買契約의 效力" 釜山判例硏究會 2 : 129-130, 1992
• 58 姜仁崖, "土地公槪念關係法의 解說­國土利用管理法上의 土地去來許可制와 宅地所有上限에 관한 法律 槪觀­" 大韓辯護士協會 (175) : 52-, 1991
• 59 金光泰, "國土利用管理法上의 許可없이 締結한 土地去來契約" 博英社 1 : 246-, 1993
• 60 李光範, "國土利用管理法上의 土地去來許可를 받지 않아 流動的 無效인 契約의 法律關係" 法院圖書館 (29) : 278-, 1998
• 61 朴海成, "國土利用管理法上 規制地域 내에 있는 토지에 대하여 去來許可를 받지 아니하고 체결한 賣買契約에 기하여 지급한 契約金을 不當利得으로 반환을 구할 수 있는지 여부" 法院圖書館 19 (19): 197-199, 1993
• 62 沈俊輔, "取得時效와 代償請求權, 民事判例硏究(XX)" 博英社 94-95, 1998
• 63 黃翼, "取得時效로 因한 所有權移轉登記義務의 履行不能과 代償請求權" 釜山判例硏究會 6 : 124-, 1996
• 64 金壽亨, "判例實務硏究(I)"
• 65 李太載, "債權總論新講" 進明文化社 115-, 1987
• 66 郭潤直, "債權總論" 博英社 87-, 2006
• 67 金曾漢, "債權總論" 博英社 65-, 1988
• 68 金疇洙, "債權總論" 三英社 131-132, 2003
• 69 林正平, "債權總論"
• 70 權龍雨, "債權總論" 法文社 154-, 1992
• 71 金亨培, "債權總論" 博英社 199-, 1998
• 72 金相容, "債權總論" 法文社 130-, 2000
• 73 金曾漢, "債權總論" 博英社 170-, 1998
• 74 金大貞, "債權總論" 도서출판 fides 517-, 2006
• 75 李銀榮, "債權總論" 博英社 230-, 2006
• 76 尹喆洪, "債權總論" 法元社 139-140, 2006
• 77 李好珽, "債權法總論"
• 78 張在賢, "債權法總論" 玄岩社 91-, 1998
• 79 諸哲雄, "代償請求權의 適用範圍에 관한 小考"
• 80 朱芝弘, "代償請求權의 規範的 根據에 관한 小考" 延世法學會 5 (5): 304-305, 1998
• 81 趙誠民, "代償請求權의 要件과 效果" 47 (47): 85-, 2002
• 82 金聖龍, "代償請求權의 發生要件-대법원판례의 변화와 함께-" 漢陽大學校法學硏究所 8 : 190-, 1997
• 83 강봉석, "代償請求權의 意義 및 要件" 한국민사법학회 (32) : 245-272, 2006
• 84 嚴東燮, "代償請求權의 制限, 法律新聞 2603호"
• 85 崔秉祚, "代償請求權에 관한 小考, 判例實務硏究(I)"
• 86 林建勉, "代償請求權에 관한 小考" 慶南大學校法學硏究所 14 : 137-, 1998
• 87 郭龍燮, "代償請求權, 裁判實務硏究"
• 88 李相京, "代償請求權, 民事裁判의 諸問題" 博英社 251-, 1995
• 89 崔鍾吉, "代償請求權(下)" 20 (20): 44-, 1965
• 90 崔鍾吉, "代償請求權(上)" 20 (20): 10-, 1965
• 91 李忠勳, "代償請求權" 延世法學硏究會 5 : 319-, 1998
• 92 尹根洙, "不動産 占有取得時效 完成으로 因한 登記請求權이 履行不能된 경우 代償請求權의 成否 및 要件" 釜山判例硏究會 8 : 173-, 1998
• 93 石琮顯, "一般行政法(上)" 三英社 278-279, 2003
• 94 金性洙, "一般行政法" 法文社 256-, 2008