Earticle

사전 표본평가의 비구속성에도 불구하고, 가이드라인으로서의 사 전 표본평가 그 자체는 실제로 감정평가에 영향을 미칠 수밖에 없 다. 따라서 사전 표본평가제도는 보상액평가과정에 사전에 개입하 는 셈이 되고, 이는 정당보상원칙에 직결된 문제가 된다. 따라서 사전 표본평가제도는 당연히 행정규칙에서 규율할 것이 아니라 모 법률의 차원에서 근거를 마련하는 것이 바람직하다. 재평가 제도 자체가 정당보상원칙에 반하지는 않는다. 그런데 손실보상의 재원 은 대체적으로 재정에서 비롯된다는 점에서 정당보상원칙에 의하면 과소보상은 물론 과다보상 역시 배제되어야 한다. 후자와 관련해서 보자면 재평가 자체의 문제점 보다는 그것의 운용에 토지소유자의 관점에서 타당한 우려가 있다. 따라서 그것이 모법에 근거를 두지 않고 있음은 법률유보원칙에 비추어 문제가 있다. 설령 구체적 내 용이 시행규칙에서 자세히 규정되더라도, 모법의 차원에서 근거규 정이 마련되어야 한다. 부동산 가격공시 및 감정평가에 관한 법률 제42조 제3항에서 감정평가의 타당성 조사사유를 구체적으로 규정 하는 것이 바람직하다. 모법률의 차원에서 타당성조사사유를 전혀 규정하지 않은 현행 법상황은 본질사항유보설의 입장에서 치명적인 문제점을 안고 있다. 더불어 시행령 제83조 제2항의 타당성조사의 불실시․중지사유 역시 모법률에 규정하는 것이 입법체계상으로 바람직하다. 그리고 타당성조사의 불실시․ 중지결정은 재량행위가 아 닌 기속행위로 규정하는 것이 바람직하다.

자영업자 700만 시대라 불리 정도로 오늘의 시장경제에서 이들이 차지하 는 비율이 높아져 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 자영업자는 그 대부분이 경제적 리스크에 노출되어 있다. 이러한 상황 속에서 일부 임대인의 권리금 취득을 목적으로 한 약탈적 행위로 임차인의 경제적 빈곤은 더욱 심화되고 있다. 이와 같은 문제해소를 위해 상가권리금 법제화가 대두되었으며, 현재 관련 제도를 마련하여 국회에 제출되어 있다. 상가권리금 법제화는 자영업자가 영 업을 위해 지불한 권리금 자체를 보호하기 위한 것은 아니다. 자영업자가 안 정적으로 영업할 수 있고, 나아가 자신의 노력으로 형성한 영업가치에 해당 하는 부분에 대해 회수 가능하도록 하는 데 있다. 또한 상가권리금 문제는 임차인의 영업활동 보호 및 재산권 보호와 관련하여 민사법적 영역에 한정된 사항이 아니라, 공법적 분야에서도 심층 있게 논의해야 할 과제를 내재하고 있다. 이것이 재개발 재건축에 있어 영업보상과 상가권리금의 관계설정이 필 요한 시점에 도달하였음을 의미한다. 이 논문은 현재 상가권리금과 관련하여 어떠한 문제가 있는가에 대해 살 펴보고, 현행 법률상 임차인 보호 및 상가권리금 보호의 한계는 무엇이며, 대 법원에서 상가권리금에 관해 어떠한 견해에서 접근하고 또한 임차인 보호와 상가권리금 보호를 위한 입법동향에 대해 고찰하였다. 이를 기반으로 임차인 의 안정적 영업활동 보장 및 재산권 보호의 실효성 제고방안에 대해 간략히 서술하고 있다. 상가권리금 법제화는 임차인의 피해를 최소화하고 안정적 영업활동을 보장 하기 위한 시발점이다. 여기에 법제화의 의의가 있다고 하겠다.

In the era of so-called 7 million self-employed workers, their portion in today's market economy has increased. Nevertheless, most of self-employed individuals are exposed to economic risk. In such circumstances, tenant's economic poverty has intensified due to some landlords' predatory acts for gaining commercial key money. In order to resolve the issue, legislation on commercial key money has been brought to the table for discussion and a bill for regulation of relevant matters is submitted to the National Assembly. Legislative purpose regarding commercial key money is not for protecting key money paid by self-employed businesses, but for ensuring that self-employed individuals do their business stably. Furthermore, it is to allow them to obtain business operating values which have been formed by their own efforts. In addition, the issues regarding move-in fees are not limited to the areas of civil law in terms of areas of civil law in terms of the protection of business activities conducted by tenants and the protection of property rights, but also include in-depth topics to be discussed in relation to the areas of public law. This implies that we have reached the point where the relationship between compensation paid for business loss and move-in fees should be discussed with regard to redevelopment and reconstruction. This study looks into the current issues regarding commercial key money, the scopes and limitations provided for in current laws in terms of the protection of tenants and commercial key money, overview of the critical precedents of the Supreme Court in relation to commercial key money, and legislative issues on the protection of tenants and commercial key money. Based on those outcomes of this study, it summarizes the effective ways of ensuring tenants' stable business operation and protecting their property rights. It is meaningful to legislate regulations concerning commercial key money because such legislation will a starting point where tenants can minimize their business loss and do their business stably.

The calculation of the compensation amount in the case of expropriation of land is a very important and difficult issue. The land value comprises of 80% or more of the total compensation amount, but it is difficult to calculate because of the lack of comparable sales. Article 23(3) of the Constitution stipulates that “expropriation, use or restriction of private property from public necessity and compensation therefor shall be governed by Act: Provided, That in such a case, just compensation shall be paid.” Based on the premise that land may only be assessed by its objective value due to its nature by undergoing a reasonable adjustment which comprehensively takes into consideration of all of the elements affecting the formation of the price of the land based on the market price of a similar neighboring land, the Constitutional Court held that the calculation of compensation damages resulting from expropriation of land based on “officially announced price of reference land” does not violate the principle of just compensation under the Constitution. However, the argument that just compensation is not being made due to issues such as the officially announced value of land falls short of the market value has been constantly brought up. The Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act provides that, where the value of land appraised by the certified public appraiser based on the officially announced price of reference land does not meet a just compensation amount, the project implementer may add, subtract or adjust the appraised value. However, the Act on Acquisition of Land and Compensation for Land, Etc. for Public Works does not provide for a provision which allows the project implementer to add, subtract or adjust the land value appraised by a certified public appraiser in calculating the compensation amount. Even if it is possible to find a valid cause for adjustment based on other factors through the interpretation of relevant laws and cases as it is done now, it is a limited alternative as the Act on Acquisition of Land and Compensation for Land, Etc. for Public Works does not expressly stipulate a relevant provision and it is determined that it can be reasonably resolved by legislating such provision. This study annotates public law issues surrounding the calculation of compensation amounts based on officially announced price for reference land from a critical point of view based on the full bench decision of the Constitutional Court in November 26, 2009, 2009HunBa141. The main issues include the meaning of “addition, subtraction or adjustment” of the officially announced price of reference land under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, the constitutionality of the calculation of compensation amounts based on appraised value of land, issues concerning officially assessed individual land prices and just compensation and the nature of the standard comparison table of land price.

This study aims to examine support plan for restructuring of water aggregate collection companies, as compensation or alternative for compensation for the companies’ loss for suspending business due to a large-scale national project. For restructuring of water aggregate collection business, it was suggested that the restructuring of the business for improving the industry and competence of the industry was more important than supplementary compensation for suspending the business. The legal ground for support plan should be prepared by adding provisions for restructuring of aggregate industry to Aggregate Collection Act and related regulations, rather than legislating a special law as in the case of fishing industry restructuring and aid for damages due to FTA. Also, the study suggests as the scope of legislation that a ground for ‘restructuring plans for aggregate industry’’ in Aggregate Collection Act, execute restructuring of the industry based on it, and execute overall or relevant restructuring in the future if it is required in the future.