유치권은 타인의 물건 또는 유가증권에 관하여 생긴 채권이 변제기에 있는 경우에 변제를 받을 때까지 그 물건 또는 유가증권을 유치할 권리인데(민법 제320조), 등기 없이 점유만으로 담보물권으로서 절대효를 가진다. 뿐만 아니라 민사집행법이 제91조 제2항에서 “매각부동산 위의 모든 저당권은 매각으로 소멸한다.”고 규정하여 소멸주의를 원칙으로 하고 있음에도 불구하고, 동조 제5항에서는 “매수인은 유치권자에게 그 유치권으로 담보하는 채권을 변제할 책임이 있다.”고 규정하여 인수주의를 취하고 있다보니 유치권자는 우선변제권을 가지지는 않지만 경락인에게도 유치권을 주장하며 피담보채권의 변제가 있을 때까지 목적물을 계속 점유할 수 있게 되어 사실상 우선변제권을 가지게 된다. 이러한 특수성으로 인하여 부동산 경매절차에서 유치권을 주장하는 자가 출현하는 경우 경락인은 예상하지 못한 손해를 입을 수 있게 된다. 유치권의 특수성으로 인하여 발생하게 되는 문제점들을 해결하기 위해서 다양한 해결방안이 제시되고 있지만, 유치권 자체에 대한 개정은 아직 이루어지지 않고 있다. 다만 유치권 행사로 인한 피해를 최소화할 수 있도록 민사집행법과 민법에 일정한 규정을 두고 있다.
대법원 2020. 1. 6. 선고 2019다247385 판결(이하 ‘대상판결’이라 한다)은 경매절차에서 유치권이 주장되지 않은 경우 경락인의 보호를 위해서 민법 제578조 제1항의 담보책임이 문제된 판례이다. 대상판결은 소송법상 측면에서 그리고 실체법상 측면에서 쟁점이 있다. 소송법적 측면에서 대상판결은 확인의 이익이 소송요건에 해당하는지 여부와 소송요건에 해당한다면 본안심리 전에 직권으로 조사되어야 했음에도 불구하고 직권으로 조사하지 않는 경우에 상고심에서 이를 참작하여야 하는지 여부가 문제된다. 이에 확인의 이익은 소송요건에 해당함으로 상고심에서 참작 여부가 검토되어야 하고, 확인의 이익이 소송요건에 해당하는 경우 소극적 확인의 이익도 확인의 이익이 있다는 것을 확인하였다.
실체법적 측면에서 대상판결은 경매절차에서 유치권 주장 여부에 따른 담보책임에 대한 판단이 문제된다. 특히 경매절차에서 유치권이 주장되지 않은 경우 채무자 아닌 소유자(제3취득자)가 민법 제578조 제1항에 따른 담보책임자에 해당하는지 여부가 문제된다. 대상판결은 제3취득자는 담보책임자에 해당하지 않아 확인의 이익이 없다고 하고 있는데, 종전 판결이 채무자 아닌 소유자(물상보증인)도 담보책임자라고 판시하고 있는 것과는 다른 판단을 하고 있기 때문이다. 이에 대해서 학설도 종전 판례의 입장과 같은 물상보증인설과 대상판결의 입장과 같은 채무자설로 나뉘고 있다. 본고에서는 채무자설의 견지에서 채무자가 아닌 소유자는 민법 제578조 제1항의 ‘채무자’의 범위에 포함되지 않아야 한다고 주장하며 그 근거를 제시하였다.
The right of retention is a right to retain the item or securities until the repayment if receivables on the item or securities of others are in the repayment stage according to Article 320 of the Civil Law, and it has the absolute effect as the real right granted by way of security only with occupation without registration. In addition, Section 2 of Article 91 of the Civil Execution Act prescribes, “all the mortgages on the sold real estate shall be lapsed by sale,” with the principle of extinction, however, Section 5 of the same article prescribes, “buyer is responsible for clearing receivables that collateralize with the retention right,” taking the position of abernahmeprinzip. Therefore, the person of the retention right does not have the preferential payment right but he or she can claim the retention right to the successful bidder and can retain the object until the secured claim is refunded, showing the preferential payment right, practically. Due to this nature, the successful bidder may suffer unexpected damage if the person who claims the retention right appears in the auction process of real estates. Multiple solutions are offered to solve the problems occurred from the unique characteristics of retention right, however, the amendment on the retention right itself has not been realized. On the other hand, there are certain rules in the Civil Execution Act and the Civil Law to minimize the damages from execution of retention right. The judgment 2019-Da-247385 sentenced on Jan 6, 2020 by the Supreme Court (hereunder called ‘the subject judgment’) was a precedent that responsibility for security in Section 1 of Article 578 in the Civil Law became a problem to protect the successful bidder in case that retention right was not claimed in the auction process. In the subject judgment, the problem was occurred in the issues between the procedural law and the substantial law. With respect to the procedural law, the problem is whether the confirmed benefit corresponds to the requirements of lawsuit or not. Also, the problem is whether the trial at the Supreme Court should consider non-investigation by authority although the case should have investigated by authority before hearing on the merits if the case corresponds to the requirements. The confirmed benefit corresponds to the requirement of lawsuit, therefore, whether to consider it in the trial at the Supreme Court should be reviewed, and it is confirmed that passive confirmed benefit contains the confirmed benefit. With respect to the substantial law, the subject judgment has the problem on the determination of responsibility for security by the claim of retention right in the auction process. In particular, in case that the retention right is not claimed in the auction process, the problem is whether the owner (the third party purchaser) rather than debtor corresponds to the person of responsibility for security according to Section 1 of Article 578 in the Civil Law. The subject judgment claims no confirmed benefit because the third party purchaser does not correspond to the person of responsibility for security, which is inconsistent with the previous judgment prescribing the owner (person who has pledged his property to secure another’s obligation) rather than debtor as the person of responsibility for security. The theories on this are divided by the theory of person who has pledged his property to secure another’s obligation which is consistent with the position of the previous precedent and the theory of debtor which corresponds to the position of the subject judgment. In this article, the evidences that the subject judgment should consider no responsibility for security by owner rather than debtor were proposed in view of the theory of debtor, changing the position of the previous precedent.
The right of retention is a right to retain the item or securities until the repayment if receivables on the item or securities of others are in the repayment stage according to Article 320 of the Civil Law, and it has the absolute effect as the real right granted by way of security only with occupation without registration. In addition, Section 2 of Article 91 of the Civil Execution Act prescribes, “all the mortgages on the sold real estate shall be lapsed by sale,” with the principle of extinction, however, Section 5 of the same article prescribes, “buyer is responsible for clearing receivables that collateralize with the retention right,” taking the position of abernahmeprinzip. Therefore, the person of the retention right does not have the preferential payment right but he or she can claim the retention right to the successful bidder and can retain the object until the secured claim is refunded, showing the preferential payment right, practically. Due to this nature, the successful bidder may suffer unexpected damage if the person who claims the retention right appears in the auction process of real estates. Multiple solutions are offered to solve the problems occurred from the unique characteristics of retention right, however, the amendment on the retention right itself has not been realized. On the other hand, there are certain rules in the Civil Execution Act and the Civil Law to minimize the damages from execution of retention right. The judgment 2019-Da-247385 sentenced on Jan 6, 2020 by the Supreme Court (hereunder called ‘the subject judgment’) was a precedent that responsibility for security in Section 1 of Article 578 in the Civil Law became a problem to protect the successful bidder in case that retention right was not claimed in the auction process. In the subject judgment, the problem was occurred in the issues between the procedural law and the substantial law. With respect to the procedural law, the problem is whether the confirmed benefit corresponds to the requirements of lawsuit or not. Also, the problem is whether the trial at the Supreme Court should consider non-investigation by authority although the case should have investigated by authority before hearing on the merits if the case corresponds to the requirements. The confirmed benefit corresponds to the requirement of lawsuit, therefore, whether to consider it in the trial at the Supreme Court should be reviewed, and it is confirmed that passive confirmed benefit contains the confirmed benefit. With respect to the substantial law, the subject judgment has the problem on the determination of responsibility for security by the claim of retention right in the auction process. In particular, in case that the retention right is not claimed in the auction process, the problem is whether the owner (the third party purchaser) rather than debtor corresponds to the person of responsibility for security according to Section 1 of Article 578 in the Civil Law. The subject judgment claims no confirmed benefit because the third party purchaser does not correspond to the person of responsibility for security, which is inconsistent with the previous judgment prescribing the owner (person who has pledged his property to secure another’s obligation) rather than debtor as the person of responsibility for security. The theories on this are divided by the theory of person who has pledged his property to secure another’s obligation which is consistent with the position of the previous precedent and the theory of debtor which corresponds to the position of the subject judgment. In this article, the evidences that the subject judgment should consider no responsibility for security by owner rather than debtor were proposed in view of the theory of debtor, changing the position of the previous precedent.
