물권의 포기에 관한 소고 (Study on the abandonment of the real rights)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 전남대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 법학논총 / 36권 / 1호 / 429 ~ 462페이지
· 저자명 : 윤철홍

초록

본　연구는　한국민법상　물권의　포기에　관해　발생하는　다양한　문제들을　검토하여　해결을　모색한　것이다．　한국민법전은 물권의 포기에 관한 일반　규정을 두고 있지 않다. 따라서 물권포기의 법적 성질과 물권의 공시, 즉 부동산등기나 동산에 대한 점유의 포기가 필요하는지에 대한 논란이 있다．　때로는 해석론의 범주를 넘는 문제도 발생하여　입법을　통한　해결방안이　요구되기도 한다. 논구한　결과는　다음과　같이　요약할　수　있다．　 １. 물권의 포기가　권리자의　일방적인　단독행위라는　점에는　이견이　없다．　그러나　단독행위가　상대방　있는　것인지　여부에　대해 학설 대립되고 있다. 모든　물권의 포기를 상대방 없는 단독행위로 이해하는 소수설과는 달리 소유권의　포기는 상대방　없는　단독행위이다．　이에　반해　제한물권은　상대방　있는　단독행위라는　것이　지배적인　견해이다．　그러나　사견에　따르면　소유권의　포기도　유형에 따라 달리 이해해야 할 것이다. 동산소유권의 포기는 지배적인　견해와 같이 상대방 없는 단독행위라는 점에 이견이 없다. 그러나 통상　부동산소유권의　포기는　상대방　없는　단독행위로　이해　할　수　있으나，　합유물의　지분에　관한　포기와　위기（委棄）의　경우는　상대방　있는　단독행위로　해석해야　할　것이다． ２. 물권의 포기에 대한 요건 역시 유형별로 구별하여 달리 해석해야 할 것이다. 예컨대 동산소유권의 포기는 상대방 없는 단독행위로서 포기의 의사표시로 족할 것이다. 이에 반해 부동산소유권에 대한 포기는 소유권포기에 대한 의사표시와 함께 등기를 해야　한다. 규정은　없지만　포기의 의사표시는 새로운　소유자가　될　국가에게　해야　할　것이다.
３． 부동산물권의　포기　시에　요구되는　등기는　단독신청이　가능한　것인가？　이　문제도　필자는　지배적인　견해와는　달리　단순한　부동산소유권의　포기와　위기의　경우에는　공동으로　신청해야　하고，　제한물권의　경우에는　단독으로　신청할　수　있다고　생각한다．　　 ４．물권의　포기와　관련하여　일반규정이　없기　 때문에　여러　가지　문제가　발생하여　학설대립과　불명한　점들이　있다．　따라서　독일민법과 같은 물권의 포기에 관한 일반 규정을 두는 것은 필요하다고 생각한다.

영어초록

This Study is the seeking for a solution by examining the diverse problems that have occurred in relation to the abandonment of the real rights in terms of the civil law of Korea. The civil code of Korea does not have the general regulations related to the abandonment of the real rights. As a result, there is the controversy regarding the legal nature of the abandonment of the real rights, the public announcement of the real rights, or, in other words, whether the abandonment of the occupation of the real estate registrations or the movable assets is needed. Sometimes, because the problems that go beyond the category of the theories of interpretation occur, thereby demanding the solution plans through the legislation.
１. There are no different views with regard to the point that the abandonment of the real rights is a one-sided, unilateral act of the rightful person. However, regarding whether the unilateral act has a counterpart, there has been a theoretical conflict. Differently from the small number view that understands the abandonment of all the real rights as a unilateral act without a counterpart, the abandonment of the ownership right is a unilateral act without a counterpart. In contrast to this, the predominant view is that the limited real rights are the unilateral acts with a counterpart. However, according to the personal opinion, the abandonment of the ownership right should be understood differently according to the type. There is no different view that he abandonment of the ownership right of the movable assets is a unilateral act without a counterpart in the same way as the predominant view. However, although, usually, the abandonment of the ownership right of the real estates can be understood as a unilateral act without a counterpart, in the case of the abandonment related to the share of the partnership properties or in the case of the entrustment, it must be interpreted as a unilateral act with a counterpart.
２. The requirements regarding the abandonment of the real rights, too, should be interpreted differently by distinguishing them into the types. For example, the abandonment of the ownership rights of the movable assets will be sufficient as the expression of the intention of the abandonment as the unilateral act without a counterpart. In contrast to this, the abandonment of the real estate ownership rights should be registered together with the expression of the intention of the abandonment of the ownership rights. Although there are no regulations, the expression of the intention to abandon must be done by the country which will become the new owner.
３. Can the sole application of the registration demanded when abandoning the real estate real rights be possible? Regarding this problem, I, the writer, believe that, differently from the predominant view, in the cases of the simple abandonments and entrustments of the real estate ownership rights, the request should be made jointly, and, in the case of the limited real rights, the request can be made solely.
４. Regarding the abandonment of the real rights, as there are no general regulations, there are the points that are indistinct in relation to the conflicts of the theories because many problems have occurred. As a result, I believe that it is needed to have the general regulations related to the abandonment of the real rights like the German civil law.

참고자료

· 없음