공동저당의 배당에 관한 연구

Abstract

【Abstract】

A Study on the Dividend of Joint Mortgage

Rieu, Hong-Gyou Advisor: Prof. Kim, Bum-Chul, Ph. D Department of Law Graduate School of Chosun University

The Civil Code has been developed by continually expanding the scope of mortgage in order to respond to the constantly changing economic development and to increase the possibility of applying the mortgage system. In particular, the Civil Code recognizes a common mortgage, which is set up with a number of real estate properties that can be set up as mortgages in order to secure the same receivables in case that the collateral value of the real estate does not match the amount of the counterclaimed receivables. In Korea, land and buildings are separate real estate, and the collateral value of land subdivided by parcel is so low that it is very difficult to give and take credit as a single real estate. Therefore, the joint mortgage system is more commonly used than the general mortgage because its usability is great in many fields of society because of its advantages such as it has easier credibility through the accumulation of collateral and it can disperse the risk of reducing the collateral value coming from the damage and destruction of the object. In case of a joint mortgage, a creditor may freely choose a part of a number of properties that are the objects of a joint mortgage, so that some or all of the bond may be reimbursed first. By the way, as a result of free choice, because the unfairness may arise in between the holders of the object or to the subordinated mortgagee, the Civil Code sets up Article 368 of the Civil Code to adjust the interests with the subordinated mortgagee and to extend the value of the mortgage value which may arise as a result of free choice. However, it is not enough in many ways that the Korean Civil Code has only Article 368 in order to solve the problem in the joint mortgage where various problems may concretely arise. This regulation is a criterion for the important interpretation in the joint mortgage, but as many theories conflict on the interpretation of this regulation, and the precedent cases do not disclose the position on all matters that may arise, it is said that they have various interpretational problems. Therefore, this paper studies on the dividend of joint mortgage by checking the applied scope and nature of Article 368 of the Civil Code and the legal nature of the subrogation rights of subordinate mortgage lenders through theories, precedents, and cases to solve various legal problems arising from the legal structure that joint mortgages are set on several real properties, and furthermore, it suggests the improvement plan through the interpretation in the part where there is a gap of law. In the requirements for the formation of a joint mortgage, there are some problems typically in the object of a joint mortgage, the identity of a secured bond, and the registration portion of a joint mortgage. In the case of a heterogeneous object, whether it applies Article 368 of the Civil Code or not is problematic. However, according to the economic development, since the scope of the object of the mortgage right has been expanded, if it is possible to establish a general mortgage right. it is also true to establish in between heterogeneous objects. In order for the secured claim to be the same, the creditor and the debtor should be the same for several securities, and the cause and coverage of the bond should be the same. If the scope of the collateral is not the same, rather than denying its existence, it would be in accordance with the purpose of the system to recognize the joint mortgage within the overlapped scope if the cause of the bond is the same as the related party. There is a confrontation in between the theories on whether the registration of a joint mortgage is required or not. That is because in the mortgage there is no particular reason for registering a joint mortgage, nor does it require a separate registration as a requirement for the formation of a joint mortgage in the law or document. The dividend of the joint mortgage can be divided into the simultaneous dividend and the different dividend. When distributing the auctioned value at the same time by auctioning each real estate simultaneously that is the object of the joint mortgage, the Civil Code sets up the share of the security bond in proportion to the auction price of each real estate (Article 368 Item 1 of Civil Code). However, if a joint mortgagee auctions only a specific property among the objects of a joint mortgage and receives the first dividend at the auction price, the entire amount of the bond may be reimbursed from the proceeds. In this case, the subordinated mortgagee in the auctioned specific real estate may exercise its mortgage for the joint mortgage lender in the amount that would have been borne by another property if the joint mortgagee had been paid at the same time (Article 368 Item 2 of the Civil Code). This is to protect the subordinate mortgagee from being unfairly disadvantaged(subrogation rights of subordinated mortgage holders). If all or a part of real estate that is the object of a joint mortgage belongs to a person other than the debtor, that is, the guarantor(hereunder indicating the person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's obligation) of the third party or the third acquirer, conflicts arise between the subrogation of subordinate and that of subordinate mortgagees, and in this case, the priority is important. In the case, theories are confronted, and in case of the precedent, the subrogation by a person who has performed obligation has the priority. However, since the guarantor or the third acquirer is interpreted as having to bear the amount of the secured claim in proportion to the value of the objects of the joint mortgage, it is not necessary to protect even under the exclusion of the application of Article 368 Item 2 and not protecting them would be consistent with the intent of Article 368 Item 2 of the Civil Code to make full use of the collateral value of each property, which is the object of the joint mortgage, so the subordinated mortgagee preference is right. In this way, in order to protect the disadvantage of subordinated mortgage holders in the joint mortgage, the Civil Code recognizes the subrogation in Article 368 of the Civil Code. Therefore, it is necessary to seek the legislative measure to fill the void of the system in order to realize its purpose. It is necessary to clearly define the scope of application of Article 368 of the Civil Code, and if the purpose of the joint mortgage is not registered, it is necessary to legislate to determine whether the joint mortgage is to be regarded as a joint mortgage or not. If all or a part of the real estate as the object of a joint mortgage belongs to a person other than the debtor, a collision will occur between the subrogation of the subordinate and the subrogation of the subordinate mortgagee, so a legislative supplement on which takes the priority is needed. In addition, the registration of the subrogation bookkeeping is an important basis for the person exercising the subrogation of the mortgage to counter a third party, but the current real estate registration law has the problem which can not register the bookkeeping due to the subrogation right at the back sentence of Article 368 of the Civil Code until all joint mortgages are auctioned. Thus it is necessary to prepare a plan that makes it easier to register the bookkeeping of the subrogation, and when the stakeholders agree to it, it should allow the registration of the change of the mortgage rights, and it also needs the supplement on the joint mortgage such as the regulation that the application of the registration of removing the joint mortgage needs the consent of the subordinated mortgagee and the regulation is differently applied in case that a part of the object of the joint mortgage is not owned by the debtor