우리 민법에서는 대상청구권에 대하여 아무런 규정을 두고 있지 않음으로 인해 판례가 인정하게 됨으로써 그 인정범위와 권리의 내용에 대해 학설상 다툼이 발생할 수밖에 없다. 이에 대하여 대법원은 공평의 원리에 따라 구체적인 사안에서 구체적 타당성을 도출하는 방향으로 대상청구권을 활용하고 있다. 특히 부동산 점유취득시효로 인한 소유권이전등기청구권이 이행불능이 되었을 경우에 대상청구권에 대하여도, 이행불능 전에 등기명의인에 대하여 취득시효의 완성을 주장하거나, 또는 그것을 원인으로 한 등기청구권을 행사하였을 경우에만 그 대상청구권을 행사할 수 있는 것으로 요건을 제한함으로써 취득시효완성 후 목적물을 처분한 소유자의 책임을 제한적으로 인정하여 온 기존 판례와 조화를 맞추고 있다. 이러한 판례의 태도는 공평의 이념에 따른 것으로 기본적으로는 타당한 것으로 볼 수 있으나 대상청구권의 인정범위나 구체적인 권리내용이 명확하지 않아 법적 안정성을 해칠 우려가 있다. 따라서 대상청구권에 관한 충분한 논의를 거쳐 그 인정범위와 권리의 내용에 대하여 민법에 명문으로 규정을 둠으로써 입법론적으로 해결하는 것이 다툼을 방지할 수 있는 방안이 될 것으로 생각한다.

A Study on the Claim Rights of Vicarious Compensation The claim rights of vicarious compensation mean the creditors’ right of recourse on the profit against the obligors when debtors make profits on vicarious compensation of the object to be fulfilled by the same causes which raised the insolvency. The Korean civil law has no provision on the claim rights of vicarious compensation. The claim rights of vicarious compensation in legal schemes and the harmonizations of the laws with the other civil law systems are different due to the differences in the ways of the transfer of a real right and the principles of risk bearing etc. of the countries. The results of breaking the fairness between both parties concerned like this appear continuously in that only the proportional decrease of a consideration obligation would be admitted, the effect come up to fruit, even a guarantor necessarily bears a responsibility when the rights are exercised. In conclusion, due to the problems in itself as well as possible conflict with existing system and fairness breaking result of the acknowledging the claim right of vicarious compensation, it is reasonable that the Korean civil law should not acknowledge the claim rights of vicarious compensation. In a word, it is necessary to provide an express provision admitting the claim rights of vicarious compensation and regulating essential contents rationally to solve the problems.

A Study on the Claim Rights of Vicarious Compensation The claim rights of vicarious compensation mean the creditors’ right of recourse on the profit against the obligors when debtors make profits on vicarious compensation of the object to be fulfilled by the same causes which raised the insolvency. The Korean civil law has no provision on the claim rights of vicarious compensation. The claim rights of vicarious compensation in legal schemes and the harmonizations of the laws with the other civil law systems are different due to the differences in the ways of the transfer of a real right and the principles of risk bearing etc. of the countries. The results of breaking the fairness between both parties concerned like this appear continuously in that only the proportional decrease of a consideration obligation would be admitted, the effect come up to fruit, even a guarantor necessarily bears a responsibility when the rights are exercised. In conclusion, due to the problems in itself as well as possible conflict with existing system and fairness breaking result of the acknowledging the claim right of vicarious compensation, it is reasonable that the Korean civil law should not acknowledge the claim rights of vicarious compensation. In a word, it is necessary to provide an express provision admitting the claim rights of vicarious compensation and regulating essential contents rationally to solve the problems.

Positive Prescription, Possession Prescription, Fulfillment Impossibility. The Claim Rights of Vicarious Compensation.