건물의 개념과 미완성건물의 법적 지위에 대한 검토

Generally, when we call a 'Building', there is a concept of a building by a socially accepted idea, but in many cases, this often differs from what the law says. In addition, the concept differs depending on the different laws, even if there is a law having building-related regulations. Each of these legal concepts of the building would result in a conflict of legal principles due to differences in concepts in the event of a compulsory execution against the building. Thus, we looked through the possibility of unifying the definition of the concept of building after reviewing the concepts of building under the civil law, the real estate registration act, and the building law. However, we could only see that it was difficult to deduce a unified concept because each law had different legislative purposes and the benefit and protection of the law to protect. However, under the building law and the real estate registration act, buildings often share commonalities between the two, so it will reap a harvest of actual profits releasing the limitations of formal reviewing authority held by the registration officer by recognizing as a building under the real estate registration act in case of a building under the building law. Unlike land, it is the consistent position of our judicial precedents that the building does not acquire independence when registered and that even an unfinished building is recognized as an independent property if it is equipped with a minimum of columns, roofs, and main walls. However, even if an unfinished building becomes an object of ownership, it cannot be registered, so it can be thought that the recognition of unfinished building as an object of ownership despite various restrictions in protecting rights is due to the need to ensure a certain legal status for the unfinished building. Thus, after reviewing the legal status of each unfinished building, it was confirmed that the unfinished building did not have a certain status under the building law or the real estate registration act, while civil law guarantees a certain status. The difference in the legal status of an unfinished building could be found to be realistic problems, such as the difficulty of preparing attachments that must be submitted in applying for compulsory execution of unfinished buildings, and the impossibility for registration of ownership preservation due to lack of a building register. Nevertheless, as the civil law recognizes ownership of unfinished buildings, we could see that our precedents were being changed to strengthen the legal status of unfinished buildings by closing a gap in concepts among unfinished buildings under civil law, the building law, and the real estate registration act. Even if the legislation to strengthen the legal status of unfinished buildings is agreed upon, there is no need to protect the benefit and protection of the law for the unlicensed buildings or the unfinished buildings that violate building permits. Thus, rather than strengthening the overall legal status of unfinished buildings, the revision should be made to restrictively strengthen legal status only for unregistered buildings of the unfinished buildings to the extent that it can be harmonized with the real estate registration act or the building law.