전기자동차 충전시설에 관한 독일주거소유권법상의 쟁점

E-Mobilität Ladeinfrastrukturs im deutschen WEG

환경문제와 결합하여 전 세계적으로 환경친화적 자동차 보급이가속화 되는 현시점에서 충전 인프라의 설치 및 관리에 관한 문제는 구분소유자 간 분쟁의 요인이 될 수 있다. 이와 관련하여 독일 뮌헨에서 발생한 전기자동차 충전시설에 관한 분쟁사례는 독일 내 큰 시사점을 주었다. 뮌헨법원은 이러한 충전시설 설치가 다른 소유자에게도 영향을 미치는 구조적변경에 해당하므로, 충전시설을 설치하고자 하는 자는 상대방의 수인의무에따른 동의를 구하는 청구권은 원칙적으로 근거가 없다고 판시하며충전시설 설치에 제동이 걸렸었다. 결국, 이 사건을 발단으로 2020년 독일 내 전기차 관련하여 민법및 주거소유권법 등이 개정되었으며, 전기자동차 충전시설 설치를위한 소유자집회 요청과 더불어 다른 구분소유자가 설치를 동의하지 않을 때도 자기 비용으로 충전시설을 설치할 수 있는 법적 근거를 마련하였다. 국내에서도 독일과 마찬가지로 전기자동차에 관한 법률 등이 현실정에 맞도록 계속해서 개정되고 있으나, 당사자들의 충전시설 설치 및 관리에 관한 직접적인 요청과 범위 및 방법과 관련된 공동주택관리법 또는 집합건물법에서의 논의가 부진하다. 이에 따라 독일의 사례 및 주거소유권법 등의 개정 사항 등을 검토해봄으로써, 국내에서도 향후 발생 가능성이 있는 전기자동차 충전시설 등에 관한 분쟁에 있어 시사점이 될 수 있길 기대해본다.

The right of request for contract renewal was introduced into Housing Lease Protection Act(hereinafter HLPA) as a result of amending the HLPA in 2020. However, the regulations of HLPA on the right of request for contract renewal include ambiguous meaning. For this reason, there are diverse views on whether or not the right of request for contract renewal is admitted in the case concerned. If the right is admitted in that case, a house buyer can not use the house, an object to buy and sell. In particular, many problems to solve for the protection of buyer have arisen with the imperfection of resident registration system as a method to notify publicly the existence of right to lease a house with counterforce. For example, according to a judicial precedent, even if there is no resident registration of lessee, the counterforce of right to lease a house occurs and continues with the resident registration of possession assistant for the lessee concerned. By the way, the relation of possession assist is required for establishment of possession assistant. The relation is admitted irrespective of whether or not it can be recognized by the third party except lessee and possession assistant for the lessee concerned. As a result, the person to buy the house concerned can suffer unexpected damage. As indicated above, it can make a house buyer suffer unexpected damage that the regulations about right of request for contract renewal are ambiguous and the resident registration system as a method to notify publicly the existence of right to lease a house with counterforce is imperfect. For this reason, it is very important to protect a house buyer. A house seller’s liability for warranty is one of the most important remedies to protect a house buyer. By the way, through the HLPA Article 3 (5), the Civil Act(hereinafter CA) Article 575 (1) and (3) concerning the liability for warranty a seller bears in the case restricted real rights exist in contract apply mutatis mutandis to the case where a house is selled with a leasehold counterforced, and the CA Article 578 concerning the liability for warranty a seller bears in the case of sale by auction, to the case where a house is selled by auction with a leasehold counterforced, respectively. As a result, in connection with a seller’s liability for warranty, the protection of house lessee, as a primary legislative purpose of HLPA, is not perfectly reflected. The current HLPA is not enough in terms of the protection of a house lessee and a house buyer. The both of them are not incompatible. On the one hand, in terms of the protection of a house buyer, the resident registration system needs to strengthen the role to notify publicly the existence of right to lease a house with counterforce. On the other hand, the regulations about a house seller’s liability for warranty need to be revised to reflect more fully the protection of a house lessee, as a primary legislative purpose of HLPA.