限制房地产拍卖中保留权对抗力的判例法回顾

Young-Mok Park
{"title":"限制房地产拍卖中保留权对抗力的判例法回顾","authors":"Young-Mok Park","doi":"10.55029/kabl.2024.49.63","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The retention right holder has the right to refuse delivery to the buyer in the auction procedure. As part of resolving the problem of this situation, the Supreme Court has established the legal principle that liens established after the registration of the auction commencement decision cannot be used against the buyer in the auction process. However, in 2022, the Supreme Court made a ruling that is difficult to explain with these legal principles. This is because the opposing power of the lien was recognized even though the lien was not established at the time of registration of the auction commencement decision due to the postponement of the payment period. However, the 2022 Supreme Court ruling does not provide specific standards, but simply lists various circumstances that do not undermine the stability of the auction procedure even if the lien is recognized in the case. Therefore, it is not possible to know which of them is the decisive factor. In other words, this ruling is significant in that it demonstrates the need for change in the existing Supreme Court jurisprudence, but it has the limitation of failing to present specific standards to resolve this issue. In this paper, the following conclusions were presented regarding the standards for judging the opposing power of liens by comparing previous rulings with the 2022 ruling. \n(1) Limiting the opposing power of liens established by transfer of possession after registration of the auction commencement decision is an appropriate way to protect the interests of enforcing creditor. And this can be explained by the prohibition effect of attachment. \n(2) Even if a claim is established after registration of the auction commencement decision, it is necessary to deny the opposing power of the lien. This can be explained if the effect of attachment is broadly understood. \n(3) The fact that the payment period arrives after the registration of the auction commencement decision cannot be a factor to be considered when determining the adversarial power of the lien. \n(4) Whether or not a lien is listed in the status investigation report cannot be a decisive criterion for determining opposing power. However, in cases where it is necessary to protect the trust of buyers in the auction process who were unaware of the existence of a lien, opposing power must be determined by reviewing the lien holder's fault for the failure to include it in the status investigation report.","PeriodicalId":399431,"journal":{"name":"Korean Institute for Aggregate Buildings Law","volume":"4 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Review of Case Law Limiting the Opposing Power of Retention Right in Real Estate Auctions\",\"authors\":\"Young-Mok Park\",\"doi\":\"10.55029/kabl.2024.49.63\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The retention right holder has the right to refuse delivery to the buyer in the auction procedure. As part of resolving the problem of this situation, the Supreme Court has established the legal principle that liens established after the registration of the auction commencement decision cannot be used against the buyer in the auction process. However, in 2022, the Supreme Court made a ruling that is difficult to explain with these legal principles. This is because the opposing power of the lien was recognized even though the lien was not established at the time of registration of the auction commencement decision due to the postponement of the payment period. However, the 2022 Supreme Court ruling does not provide specific standards, but simply lists various circumstances that do not undermine the stability of the auction procedure even if the lien is recognized in the case. Therefore, it is not possible to know which of them is the decisive factor. In other words, this ruling is significant in that it demonstrates the need for change in the existing Supreme Court jurisprudence, but it has the limitation of failing to present specific standards to resolve this issue. In this paper, the following conclusions were presented regarding the standards for judging the opposing power of liens by comparing previous rulings with the 2022 ruling. \\n(1) Limiting the opposing power of liens established by transfer of possession after registration of the auction commencement decision is an appropriate way to protect the interests of enforcing creditor. And this can be explained by the prohibition effect of attachment. \\n(2) Even if a claim is established after registration of the auction commencement decision, it is necessary to deny the opposing power of the lien. This can be explained if the effect of attachment is broadly understood. \\n(3) The fact that the payment period arrives after the registration of the auction commencement decision cannot be a factor to be considered when determining the adversarial power of the lien. \\n(4) Whether or not a lien is listed in the status investigation report cannot be a decisive criterion for determining opposing power. However, in cases where it is necessary to protect the trust of buyers in the auction process who were unaware of the existence of a lien, opposing power must be determined by reviewing the lien holder's fault for the failure to include it in the status investigation report.\",\"PeriodicalId\":399431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Institute for Aggregate Buildings Law\",\"volume\":\"4 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Institute for Aggregate Buildings Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55029/kabl.2024.49.63\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Institute for Aggregate Buildings Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55029/kabl.2024.49.63","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

留置权人有权在拍卖程序中拒绝向买受人交货。为了解决这种情况,最高法院制定了法律原则,即在拍卖开始决定登记后设立的留置权不得在拍卖程序中用于对抗买受人。然而,在 2022 年,最高法院做出了一项难以用这些法律原则解释的裁决。这是因为,即使留置权在拍卖开始决定登记时因付款期推迟而未成立,留置权的对抗力也得到了承认。然而,2022 年最高法院的裁决并未规定具体的标准,只是列举了即使留置权在案件中得到承认也不会破坏拍卖程序稳定性的各种情况。因此,无法得知其中哪种情况是决定性因素。换言之,该判决的意义在于它表明了改变最高法院现有判例的必要性,但其局限性在于未能提出解决这一问题的具体标准。本文通过比较以往的判决与 2022 年的判决,就留置权对抗力的判断标准提出以下结论。(1)限制拍卖开始裁定登记后转移占有而成立的留置权的对抗力是保护执行债权人利益的适当方式。这可以从扣押的禁止效力得到解释。(2)即使是在拍卖开始决定登记后确立的债权,也有必要否定留置权的对抗力。如果从广义上理解扣押的效力,就可以解释这一点。(3) 在确定留置权的对抗力时,付款期在拍卖开始决定登记之后到达这一事实不能作为考虑因素。(4) 留置权是否列入现状调查报告不能作为确定对抗力的决定性标准。但是,在有必要保护拍卖过程中不知道留置权存在的买受人的信任的情况下,必须通过审查留置权人未将留置权列入现状调查报告的过错来确定对抗力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Review of Case Law Limiting the Opposing Power of Retention Right in Real Estate Auctions
The retention right holder has the right to refuse delivery to the buyer in the auction procedure. As part of resolving the problem of this situation, the Supreme Court has established the legal principle that liens established after the registration of the auction commencement decision cannot be used against the buyer in the auction process. However, in 2022, the Supreme Court made a ruling that is difficult to explain with these legal principles. This is because the opposing power of the lien was recognized even though the lien was not established at the time of registration of the auction commencement decision due to the postponement of the payment period. However, the 2022 Supreme Court ruling does not provide specific standards, but simply lists various circumstances that do not undermine the stability of the auction procedure even if the lien is recognized in the case. Therefore, it is not possible to know which of them is the decisive factor. In other words, this ruling is significant in that it demonstrates the need for change in the existing Supreme Court jurisprudence, but it has the limitation of failing to present specific standards to resolve this issue. In this paper, the following conclusions were presented regarding the standards for judging the opposing power of liens by comparing previous rulings with the 2022 ruling. (1) Limiting the opposing power of liens established by transfer of possession after registration of the auction commencement decision is an appropriate way to protect the interests of enforcing creditor. And this can be explained by the prohibition effect of attachment. (2) Even if a claim is established after registration of the auction commencement decision, it is necessary to deny the opposing power of the lien. This can be explained if the effect of attachment is broadly understood. (3) The fact that the payment period arrives after the registration of the auction commencement decision cannot be a factor to be considered when determining the adversarial power of the lien. (4) Whether or not a lien is listed in the status investigation report cannot be a decisive criterion for determining opposing power. However, in cases where it is necessary to protect the trust of buyers in the auction process who were unaware of the existence of a lien, opposing power must be determined by reviewing the lien holder's fault for the failure to include it in the status investigation report.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信