초록
According to Sentence 2012 Da 4985 Decision of Supreme Court on March 28, 2013, it is declared that when a structural partition ceases to exist among partitioned buildings corresponding to part of one building registered as a partitioned building, part of building corresponding to that partitioned building belongs to the joint ownership of registered person of the previous partitioned building. In relation to this, considering that there are certain restrictions on combination registration of a building, it is required to review if it is possible to apply for registration of alteration based on combination of a building, what the destiny of security rights attached to the previous partitioned building will be, and through what methods and procedures in a register book, the relationship of rights specified in substantial laws securities may be made public and exercised if security rights remain effective in equities of joint ownership for a combined building, and the like. This paper made a study focusing on these matters. As a result, the partition and combination of a building specified in Article 41 of the Registration of Real Property Act refer to changes in the scope of a building only in a register book without any modifications in physical structure of a building, so the Regulations on Restriction of Building Combination(Article 42 of the Regulations) do not apply to combination of a building, and accordingly there occurred discrepancies between registered matters and substantial relationship due to changes in structure and area of a partitioned building on account of combination, and contents of rights for a partitioned building are changed to joint ownership. So a conclusion was deducted that through analogical application of Article 41 of the Registration of Real Property Act, and Article 100-2 of the Regulations on Registration of Real Property, it is possible to apply for registration of ‘changes in description of a partitioned building‘ and ‘changes in rights’, and that through registration of alteration, a creditor may apply for auction with regard to equity of joint ownership instead of a partitioned building targeted for auction(Article 268, Article 139 of the Civil Execution Act).
목차
[사실관계]
[소송경과]
[연구]
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 구분소유의 성립요건
Ⅲ. 구분건물의 사실상 합동(합체)과 권리관계
Ⅳ. 구분건물의 사실상 합동(合棟)된 경우의 등기방법
Ⅴ. 맺는말
<참고문헌>
참고문헌 (0)
등록된 참고문헌 정보가 없습니다.
해당 권호 수록 논문 (18)
- 쌍무계약해제시 반환법리와 급부부당이득과의 관계
- 일본 메이지민법 부당이득법상의 기본개념의 형성
- 부동산의 가압류채권자가 가압류 후에 그 부동산에 관하여 이루어진 채무자의 물상보증행위를 사해행위로서 취소할 수 있는가
- 인격권 침해와 부당이득반환
- 공동소유에 관한 민법 개정안
- 일본 메이지민법에서의 임대차제도와 임차권 무단양도⋅임차물 무단전대에 관한 입법태도에 관한 연구
- 민법개정안 채무불이행법에 관한 검토
- 스위스법상 동물의 법적 지위에 관한 연구
- 판례로 살펴 본 제사용 재산의 승계
- 퍼블리시티권과 부당이득
- 動産善意取得의 問題에 關한 硏究
- 목적론적 관점에서 바라 본 미국 불법행위법
- 법률행위로 인한 관습법상 법정지상권 폐지와 법정임대차 도입
- 금융실명제 하에서 예금채권의 지급과 부당이득
- 매매계약이 해제된 경우 미등기 매수인이 한 임대차의 운명
- 구분건물의 구조상 구분이 소멸된 경우의 권리관계와 변경등기
- 채권자취소권에 관한 민법개정안
- 대상청구권에 대한 입법론적 소고