유치권자와 경매절차에서의 유치목적물 매수인의 법적 관계

There are currently some criticisms about harmful side effects of retention right, arguing that it delays auction process of real property and hinders righteous debt collection by creditors. In academia and administrative circles, quite a few interpretations and legislative suggestions have been offered in order to minimize these harmful side effects of retention right. The Supreme Court also takes the position that, if a debtor transfers possession of a real property to a third party and lets the third party acquire the right to retain it after attachment of the real property has already come into effect, such transfer of possession should be regarded as an act of disposition which runs counter to the effect of attachment which prohibits disposition and therefore the holder of the retention right cannot claim its preference over the buyer in a real-property auction process. Also, The Supreme Court judged that the possessory lien in auction of security rights execution does not become extinct because the principle of takeover is legal auction condition in accordance with the provision of Article 91 section 5 of Civil Execution Act which takes the principle of takeover. Meanwhile The Supreme Court judged that buyer in the auction procedure following the attachment only pays material liability to the lien holder. If the buyer takes over the debt, it will have more favorable effect than granting preferential payment right to lien holer. Therefore, the buyer should not be regarded as taking over the debt. As a general rule, a set-off is the rule which helps the settlement of both parties with conflict of interests. So it is impermissible to allow the 3rd party set-off rights if it infringes the legal relations of related parties. The 3rd party set-off right is allowed only when it solves legal relations of all parties in a easy way and there is no infringement of other parties. For the same reason, the Supreme Court don’t allow the rights of set-off to 3rd party who does not have the Claim in same species with conflict of interest. Thus, because the recognition of the set - off can infringe the rights of creditors of the lien, buyer in the auction cannot claim set – off from the lien holer.