문화예술진흥기금 조성방법으로서 부담금에 대한 입법제안- 헌법재판소의 결정에 비추어 -

Abstract

In 2003, the Constitutional Court determined unconstitutionality for the charges as a method for culture and art promotion fund, since it’s a violation of the Constitutional limit of special allowances and violation of the comprehensive legislation. At that time, four requirements were proposed for constitutional justification of the special charge. The four requirements were collective homogeneity, objective accessibility, collective accountability, collective utility. However, in subsequent decisions, it is used only as a basis for judging the basic principle of equality and infringement, and no unconstitutional decision has made by the basis of four requirements. Also, the unconstitutional decision of the case was made by eight unconstitutional opinions. However, because the basis of unconstitutionality of each of four members were different, we can not assert the effect of sentence. Therefore, even if there was a previous unconstitutional ruling, it would be possible to amend the same law if the unconstitutionality is resolved or the effect of sentence is not exist. I suggest that, following the decision of this case, the Constitutional Court continues to follow some criteria set by the Court to judge the legitimacy of the special allowance ① Establish a minimal regulation in the form of laws ② Establish a time limit of the contribution ③ Develop policy purpose for public interest ④ Limit the charge obligator to a intermediate rather than a final consumer of culture.