不動産 押留의 處分禁止效와 留置權의 效力

In this study, I investigated that the supreme court’s precedents that the person who acquire a lien after the real distress can not oppose to the execution creditor or the successful bidder by the lien is unjust. To do it, I made a general survey of the supreme court’s precedents and then reviewed and criticized ‘the injunctive effect of the real distress’ and several concerning issues. I categorized the precedents into three parts, ⑴ In case the secured debt occurred before a real distress, but the debtor transfers the occupation of the property to the creditor after the seizure, ⑵ In case the debtor transferred the occupation of the property to the creditor before a real distress, but the secured debt occurrs after the seizure, ⑶ In case both the debtor transfers the occupation of the property to the creditor and the secured debt occurrs after a real distress. And I clarified that in case ⑴, on different grounds from the precedents, the creditor can not acquire a lien or oppose to the seizure by the lien acquired, but that in case ⑵, ⑶, it is not right to deny the opposing power of the lien acquired with the precedent’s theory. Furthermore, I clarified that the precedents and the opinions which support them, are derived from the misapprehension in the very first research paper concerning the issue.