이 글은 2차 취득시효기간 중 등기명의자가 변경된 경우 2차의 점유취득시효를 완성한 점유자가 그 등기명의자에게 시효취득을 주장할 수 있는지에 관한 대법원 전원합의체 판결(2007다15172,15189)을 다룬 것이다. 대상판결의 다수의견은, 부동산에 대한 1차의 점유취득시효가 완성된 후 그로 인한 소유권이전등기를 하지 않고 있는 사이에 그 부동산에 관하여 제3자 명의의 소유권이전등기가 경료된 경우, 제3자 앞으로의 소유권 변동시를 2차의 점유취득시효의 기산점으로 삼아 취득시효완성을 주장할 수 있고, 2차의 점유취득시효기간 중 등기명의자가 변경되더라도 점유자는 2차의 점유취득시효 완성 당시의 등기명의자에 대하여 시효취득을 주장할 수 있다고 판단하였다. 이에 따라 연구대상판결은 2차의 점유취득시효기간 중 등기명의자가 동일하고 소유자의 변동이 없을 것을 취득시효의 요건으로 요구하였던 종전의 대법원판례를 변경하였다. 연구대상판결은 이른바 판례5원칙 중 제2원칙이 2차 점유취득시효의 경우에도 1차 점유취득시효의 경우와 동일하게 적용되어야 한다는 점을 밝힌 판례로서 의의가 있다.

This paper discusses the Supreme Court's case decision(2007Da15172,15189) on whether the possessor of real property who has completed a secondary acquisitive prescription can claim a completion of secondary prescription towards the owner of the real property when the registered owner had been changed in the secondary prescription period. It should be assumed that the possessor delays a registration of the ownership according to a completion of the primary acquisitive prescription while the third party registers the real property. The majority opinion of the case said that a secondary acquisitive prescription period could begin from the time of its registry and the possessor could claim a completion of secondary acquisitive prescription. Furthermore, the majority opinion held that the possessor could claim a completion of prescription even if the registered holder had been changed in the secondary prescription period. Accordingly, the court reversed the Supreme Court ruling heretofore demanding the sameness of the registered holder and constancy of the owner during the secondary prescription period as the conditions of prescription. The case can be referred as a significant case clarifying that the second principle of so-called the five case-principles about acquisitive prescription by possession may be applied to not only the primary acquisitive prescription but also the secondary acquisitive prescription.

This paper discusses the Supreme Court's case decision(2007Da15172,15189) on whether the possessor of real property who has completed a secondary acquisitive prescription can claim a completion of secondary prescription towards the owner of the real property when the registered owner had been changed in the secondary prescription period. It should be assumed that the possessor delays a registration of the ownership according to a completion of the primary acquisitive prescription while the third party registers the real property. The majority opinion of the case said that a secondary acquisitive prescription period could begin from the time of its registry and the possessor could claim a completion of secondary acquisitive prescription. Furthermore, the majority opinion held that the possessor could claim a completion of prescription even if the registered holder had been changed in the secondary prescription period. Accordingly, the court reversed the Supreme Court ruling heretofore demanding the sameness of the registered holder and constancy of the owner during the secondary prescription period as the conditions of prescription. The case can be referred as a significant case clarifying that the second principle of so-called the five case-principles about acquisitive prescription by possession may be applied to not only the primary acquisitive prescription but also the secondary acquisitive prescription.

, , , , , ,

real property, acquisitive prescription by possession, the third party, registered owner, secondary acquisitive prescription, five case-principles