상가건물임대차보호법에 대한 위헌성 분석
A Study on the Unconstitutionality of Commercial Building Tenants’ Protection Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In spite of the area that private autonomy of contracts of the market that commercial building tenant’s protection law based on the housing lease protection law is applied should be more guaranteed, it enforces the prices and periods which is the core of the contract contents. And Some provisions more strongly guarantee the commercial building tenant’s protection law than the housing lease protection law. But this is the measure that residential stability of most people and stability of economic life by the partial economic subjects is, at least, considered as more than equivalence. So social consultation about it has been controversial from the beginning. Even though a certain period has passed and the commercial building tenant’s protection law partially contributed to society, this can be the characteristics of benefic law. So practical benefit of review can be enough for harmony in the legal system and teleological establishment of the system. It could be found that commercial building tenant’s protection law is the unconstitutional regulation which violates the principle of constitutionalism, guarantee of property rights, the principle of equality and the right to pursue human happiness. But it is difficult to abolish it right now as the market accepts this. So the specific alternative including the ones which have been discussed until now will be reviewed but ideas will be collected to keep legal stability and emphasize legitimacy of the legislative purpose.
Abstract
In spite of the area that private autonomy of contracts of the market that commercial building tenant’s protection law based on the housing lease protection law is applied should be more guaranteed, it enforces the prices and periods which is the core of the contract contents. And Some provisions more strongly guarantee the commercial building tenant’s protection law than the housing lease protection law. But this is the measure that residential stability of most people and stability of economic life by the partial economic subjects is, at least, considered as more than equivalence. So social consultation about it has been controversial from the beginning. Even though a certain period has passed and the commercial building tenant’s protection law partially contributed to society, this can be the characteristics of benefic law. So practical benefit of review can be enough for harmony in the legal system and teleological establishment of the system. It could be found that commercial building tenant’s protection law is the unconstitutional regulation which violates the principle of constitutionalism, guarantee of property rights, the principle of equality and the right to pursue human happiness. But it is difficult to abolish it right now as the market accepts this. So the specific alternative including the ones which have been discussed until now will be reviewed but ideas will be collected to keep legal stability and emphasize legitimacy of the legislative purpose.
참고문헌 (22)
- "상가등임대차보호관련법안에관한공청회", 國會法制司法委員會, ~ (2001)
- 헌법재판소, "1992.12.24. 선고 92헌가8판결", ~ (1992)
- 헌법재판소, "1989.12.22. 선고 88헌가13판결", ~ (1989)
- 헌법재판소, "03.30,선고 99헌마143판결", ~ (2000)
- 헌법재판소, "2002.04.25, 선고 2001헌마614판결", ~ (2002)
- 헌법재판소, "12.24,선고 92헌가8판결", ~ (1992)
- 헌법재판소, "05.13,선고 89헌가97 판결", ~ (1991)
- 헌법재판소, "12.26,선고 96헌가18 판결", ~ (1996)
- 헌법재판소, "12.23,선고 98헌마363판결", ~ (1999)
- 헌법재판소, "05.29,선고 94헌바5판결", ~ (1997)
- 헌법재판소, "06.03,선고 89헌마204판결", ~ (1991)
- 헌법재판소, "02.27,선고 97헌바20 판결", ~ (1998)
- 헌법재판소, "02.24,선고 92헌바43 판결", ~ (1994)
- 헌법재판소, "06.24,선고 2002헌가27판결", ~ (2004)
- 대법원, "02.25.선고 93누20726 판결", ~ (1994)
- 대법원, "05.25.선고 99다9981 판결", ~ (1999)
- 대법원, "03.26.선고 2003다66134 판결", ~ (2004)
- 대법원, "06.09.선고 2000다8069 판결", ~ (2000)
- 대법원, "09.29.선고 2000다37012 판결", ~ (2000)
- 대법원, "01.05.선고 99마4307 판결", ~ (2000)
- 대구지방법원, "07.22 선고 2008나8841 판결", ~ (2008)
- 한계레신문, "기존의 임대차에 적용할지도 논란", 한계레신문 2002.05.24, ~ (2002)
