earticle

영어

There have been a lot of discussions about the legal relationships of ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay’ in the Land Compartmentalization and Rearrangement Projects Act. The reason is that when it comes to the land readjustment project, the ‘previous land’ was exchanged with the ‘allocated land’ when the project ended, but the Land Compartmentalization and Rearrangement Projects Act allowed the previous land owner to use and benefit from the ‘land in the reserved land for replotting’ as if it were his/her possession by designating ‘the reserved land for replotting’ and the project operator to dispose of the ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay’ that had no owner, considering that the land readjustment project takes a lengthy period of time, but such legal relationships were difficult to be explained clearly by the general law logic. Precedents have improved the legal principle that the project operator can acquire and dispose usufruct that is similar to‘real rights’ on the ‘planned site as an area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay’ and the purchaser of the ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay’ acquires originally the ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay.’ The legal principle above may cause some confusion in preservative measure or compulsory execution in that it admits the existence of a real right on the property that is not posted in the ‘register of real estates,’ but considered the reality and many necessities of the ‘land readjustment project’ and so according to the above legal principle, the judicial disputes surrounding the ‘land readjustment project’ could be solved without causing any big problem. However, the conditions in the Item 5 of Art. 42 of the Urban Development Act that was enacted later stipulated that the ‘purchaser of the area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay’ shall be able to succeed and acquire the ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay.’ In response, practice and theory generally interpreted that the ‘purchaser of the area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay’ has just the position as a creditor, on the premise that with respect to the legal position of the ‘purchaser of the area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay,’ the existing disputes were already been resolved legislatively. But the above opinions made no answer to these questions: “What kind of right does the project operator acquire on the area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay by designating the reserved land for replotting?” and “What is the right on the area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay that can be disposed by theproject operator in accordance with the Item 4 of Art. 36 of the Urban Development Act?” But, the viewpoint that sees the ‘purchaser of the area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay’ as being just in the position as a creditor cannot interpret reasonably the Item 4 of Art. 36 of the Urban Development Act that allows the advance disposal of the ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay’ and before anything else, conflicts with the reality of the Urban Development Act that is based on the replotting method that raises project cost by disposing in advance the ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay.’ Furthermore, it may cause much chaos and legal disputes compared to following the legal principles of the existing precedents. As the conditions in the Item 5 of Art. 42 of the Urban Development Act are bad laws that were legislated without sufficient consideration of the method of business to be done by the replotting method and the method of compulsory execution of the ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay,’ so if the purchaser of the ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay’ fulfills the disclosure requirements in accordance with the legal principles of the existing precedents, the Item 5 of Art. 42 of the Urban Development Act needs to be revised into the direction that .... shall acquire originally the ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay’ on the next day after the disposition of land substitution, and until the Urban Development Act can be revised, the legal disputes need to be resolved by keeping the legal principles of the existing precedents to the maximum, as mentioned above. Furthermore, to achieve the effectiveness of preservative measure and compulsory execution of the ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay,’ registration procedure of the ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay’ into the sales ledger, project operator’s obligations to prepare the sales ledger of the ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay,’ and regulations on the procedure(s) to register the facts related to provisional seizure recorded on the ledger of the ‘area of land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay,’ etc on the register of real property need to be newly established in the Urban Development Act and its Enforcement Ordinance.

한국어

토지구획정리사업법상 체비지의 법률관계에 해 많은 논의가 있었다. 그 이유는 토지구획정리사업은 사업이 종료된 후에 종전토지를 환지로 교환하 게 되는데, 토지구획정리사업법은 토지구획정리사업이 오랜 기간이 소요된 다는 점을 고려하여 환지 예정지 지정을 통해 종전토지의 소유자가 환지 예 정지의 토지를 마치 소유자인 것처럼 사용수익하고, 시행자는 소유권이 없 는 체비지를 처분할 수 있도록 허용했는데, 위와 같은 법률관계는 일반적인 법논리로 명쾌하게 설명하기 어려웠기 때문이다. 판례는 시행자가 체비지 예정지에 해 물권 유사의 사용수익권을 취득하고 이를 처분할 수 있으며, 체비지 매수인은 체비지를 원시취득한다는 법리를 발전시켰다. 위 법리는 부동산등기부에 공시되지 않는 부동산에 한 물권의 존재를 인정한다는 점 에서 보전처분이나 강제집행에 있어 일부 혼선을 가져오지만 토지구획정리 사업의 현실과 여러 필요성을 고려한 것으로 위 법리에 따라 토지구획정리 사업을 둘러싼 사법상 분쟁은 큰 문제없이 해결이 가능했다. 그러나 이후 제정된 도시개발법 제42조 제5항 단서는 체비지 매수인이 체비지를 승계취득할 수 있다고 규정하다. 이에 해 실무와 학설은 체비 지 매수인의 법적 지위와 관련하여 기존 논란이 입법적으로 해결된 것임을 전제로 체비지 매수인은 단지 채권적 지위에 불과하다고 해석하는 것이 일 반적이었다. 그러나 위 견해들은 시행자가 환지 예정지 지정을 통해 체비지 에 해 취득하는 권리가 무엇인지, 도시개발법 제36조 제4항에서 시행자가 처분할 수 있는 체비지에 한 권리가 무엇인지 아무런 답을 제시하지 않았 다. 하지만 체비지 매수인이 단순히 채권적 지위에 불과하다고 보는 것은 체비지의 사전 처분을 명시적으로 허용하는 도시개발법 제36조 제4항을 합 리적으로 해석할 수 없고, 무엇보다 체비지의 사전 처분을 통해 사업비를 마련하는 환지 방식에 의한 도시개발사업의 현실과 맞지 않다. 나아가 기존 판례 법리에 의할 때보다 더 많은 혼란과 법적 분쟁을 야기할 수 있다. 도시개발법 제42조 제5항 단서는 환지 방식에 의한 사업방식 및 체비지에 한 강제집행방법에 한 충분한 고려 없이 이루어진 잘못된 입법이므로 도시개발법 제42조 제5항을 기존 판례 법리에 따라 체비지 매수인이 공시요 건을 충족한 경우에는 환지처분 다음날 체비지를 원시취득한다는 내용으로 개정할 필요가 있고, 도시개발법이 개정되기 전까지는 앞서 본 바와 같이 기존 판례 법리를 최한 유지하여 법률분쟁을 해결할 필요가 있다. 나아가 체비지에 한 보전처분 및 강제집행의 실효성을 위해 체비지매각장의 등 재절차, 시행자의 체비지매각장 작성의무, 체비지장에 기재된 가압류 사실 등을 부동산등기부에 기재할 수 있는 절차에 관한 규정을 도시개발법 및 시행령에 신설할 필요가 있다.