개발허가의 법적 성질

송현담 ( Hyun Dam Song ) 한국감정평가학회 2006 감정평가학논집 Vol.5 No.1

The legal nature of Land development permit which withdraws relative prohibition is interpreted as legal bindingness-discretion. But it has been disputed whether a Land development permit has legal bindingness or discretion. The development permit, under the Act on Planning and Use of National Territory, is required to bind by law. But, in some cases, the permit is interpreted as stipulating legal bindingness-discretion which allows exceptions:not to permit with certain reason. In theory, the relativity of legal binding to discretionary act is pointed out, but the discretion of administration has been broaden as technical and political administration increases in these days. Moreover, it is emphasized because a judgment standard for the permit depends on its publcity:harmony with the environment, development as planned and infrastructure accompanied with development. However, the development permit comes under the restrictive administration. Some assert that the permit-especially meant torestrict-has to be constituted by legal binding act. If a government office uses its discretion and disapproves of development,even though it satisfies the required conditions by rule, it becomes a target of public grievance. Technical standards, therefore, have to take effect by legal binding act as much as possible under the related laws. Meanwhile, location and environment standards which require judgment on its publcity have to be recognized as legal binding-discretionary act, and then given discretion.

用途地域制의 法的 性質에 관한 考察

송현담(Song, Hyun-Dam),육동연(Youk, Dong-Youn) 한국토지공법학회 2012 土地公法硏究 Vol.56 No.-

用途地域制는 도시관리계획의 하나이다. 도시관리계획의 법적 성질에 대하여 법규범이냐 아니면 행정행위이냐는 것은 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 판례의 입장은 도시관리계획은 구속적 계획으로서 處分性을 인정하는 태도를 취하고 있다. 그러나 도시관리계획이 行政行爲로서의 성질을 갖는다 하더라도 取消訴訟을 제기하여 權利救濟를 받기 어려운 한계가 있다. 이는 행정청에게 計劃裁量이라는 광범위한 形成의 自由가 인정되고 있기 때문이다. 대법원은 形成의 自由는 무제한적인 것이 아니라고 하면서 利益衡量의 탈락․흠결 또는 利益衡量상의 평가 과오의 경우를 裁量權을 逸脫․濫用한 것으로 판시하고 있다. 판례가 학설상의 衡量命令과 衡量瑕疵및 計劃裁量이념을 채택하였다는 점은 평가할수 있으나, 衡量命令의 법적 근거에 대해 판시를 하지 않은 점과, 衡量瑕疵용어를 결여한채, 그것을 裁量權의 逸脫․濫用으로 이해하는 판시를 한 것은 논리상 문제가 있다. 計劃裁量의 경우 衡量瑕疵그 자체가 위법이 원인이 되며, 따라서 衡量瑕疵의 輕重에 따라 결과로서의 行政計劃이 無效또는 取消事由를 지닌 것으로 평가되어야 하는 것이다. Land use zoning is one of City Management Plan (CMP). There has been a debate on what is a legal nature of CMP, because CMP has both sides of legal status at the same time; a legal norm and/or an administrative act. The court has taken a stance that CMP is an administrative act, because CMP is a kind of restrictive plan which allows the government to have a administrative disposition. If CMP is an administrative act, the private rights violated by CMP can be remedied through an administrative suit for revocation. However, in the real world, the violated private right cannot be easily remedied because the government's discretionary power on CMP has been recognized very widely as a freedom of formation. The Supreme Court had decided that the government's freedom of formation shall not be an unlimited power and thus the government's discretionary power shall be deviated or abused when there are deviation, defect, or mis-calculation of profit-loss measurement of government's discretionary power. It is meaningful that the judicial precedent had adopted the academical reasoning regarding to profit-loss measurement on administrative act, defects of profit-loss measurement, and discretionary power on land use planning. Nevertheless, the judicial decision seems to have some limitations such as the court did not mention the legal basis of ordering profit-loss measurement and the definition of defects of profit-loss measurement when the court decided deviation, defect, or mis-calculation of profit-loss measurement of government's discretionary power. In the case of discretionary power on land use planning, the defects of profit-loss measurement itself can be the cause of illegal administrative act. In such a case, the administrative planning shall be invalidated or cancelled pursuant to the gravity of the defects of profit-loss measurement.

민간주택 분양원가 공개의 위헌성 검토

정회근(Jeong, Hoe-Keun),송현담(Song, Hyun-Dam) 한국토지공법학회 2012 土地公法硏究 Vol.59 No.-

In accordance with Article 23 and Article 119 of the Korean Constitution, it is declared that private property and private autonomy should be assured, and individuals and enterprises’ economic freedom and creativity should be respected on the basis of free-market economic order. Besides, Article 15 assures the freedom of career choice including the freedom of career decision and the freedom of career performance as well as the freedom of business in a broad sense. According to the present Housing Act, it is compulsory to open even the parcel cost of apartment houses. The original purpose of this institution is to promote stability on the housing market by preventing homeless citizens from suffering financial damages and a wave of speculation caused by construction companies’ excessive pricing. However, many questions have arisen about the effectiveness of this institution, especially whether opening the parcel price or parcel cost of houses, not market rices. Although construction companies’ cost opening may not have direct effect on restricting the parcel price itself, it will have indirect effect on the pricing through a psychological pressure that they would be the target of public opinion. In this light, this institution not only limits construction companies’ freedom of price decision, but constricts the construction industry, and another issue is that the parcel cost even includes a construction company’s confidential business information used to maximize profits with the least expense. The cost opening institution for privately-built houses can be approved in terms of the legitimacy of its legislative purpose, but it doesn’t seem to satisfy every requirements, such as the appropriacy of means, the balance of benefit and protection of the law and the minimization of damages, and is likely to violate the constitution by infringing the principle of proportionality (the principle of anti-overrestriction). In accordance with Section 1 and 2 of Article 119 in the constitution, it is ordered that the state consider the respect of economic freedom and creativity and the economic regulation and arbitration at the same time. Accordingly, taking such super-strong regulatory measures, called ‘Cost Opening of Privately-built Houses’ is judged inappropriate even from the standpoint of Article 119. Cost opening is not only unprecedented in the history of Korean economic legislation, but no one has adopted such an institution out of all the countries sustaining the capitalistic market-economy order. Therefore, in any other markets with the characteristics of public goods in addition to the housing market, such an institution cannot help being introduced and allowed for the normalization of markets. Eventually, introducing such a cost opening institution even into the sector of privately-built houses has high probability to excessively infringe the freedom of career performance, further violating the constitution. Moreover, due to the social binding of land property rights reinforced for publicly-built and privately-built houses, it is a consitutional demand to strengthen the security of private property system much more. Nevertheless, even into the sector of privately-built houses, whose legal structure is definitely different from that of publicly-built houses, introducing the cost opening institution is highly likely to violate basic legal rights. Overall, unlike that of publicly-built house construction, the sector of privately-built house construction is a domain where is mostly governed by high-degree principles of the market economy. Thus, forcing construction companies to open their parcel costs, which correspond to their confidential business information, through acts is likely to violate the constitution while infringing the principle of proportionality (the principle of anti-overrestriction) 우리 헌법은 제23조와 제119조에서 사유재산 및 사적자치를 보장하고, 개인과 기업의 경제상의 자유와 창의를 존중하는 자유시장경제질서를 기본으로 함을 선언하고 있으며, 제15조에서는 직업결정의 자유와 직업수행의 자유 내지는 영업의 자유를 포괄하는 넓은 의미의 직업선택의 자유를 보장하고 있다. 현행 주택법에서는 민간택지에 건설하는 공동주택에까지 분양원가를 공개토록 하고 있다. 동 제도의 당초 목적은 건설업체의 과도한 분양가 책정으로 인한 무주택서민들의 피해와 투기의 과열을 방지하여 주택시장의 안정을 도모한다는 것인 바, 주택의 분양가격이나 거래가격이 아닌 분양원가를 공개함으로써 아파트 투기의 과열을 막을 수 있는지 제도의 실효성에 많은 의문이 제기되어 왔다. 건설업체의 분양원가 공개는 분양가 자체를 제한하는 직접적인 효과는 없다고 하더라도 여론의 표적이 될 것이라는 심리적인 압박을 통하여 간접적으로 가격결정에 영향을 미치는 면에서 건설업체의 가격결정의 자유를 제한하고, 건설사업을 위축시키는 것이 될 뿐 아니라, 분양원가에는 최소비용으로 이윤을 극대화하는 기업의 영업비밀이 포함되어 있다. 민간주택에 대한 분양원가 공개제도는 입법목적의 정당성은 긍정되나, 수단의 적절성, 법익의 균형성, 피해의 최소성 등의 각 요건을 충족한다고 보기 어려우므로 비례의 원칙(과잉금지의 원칙)에 위배되는 위헌의 소지가 있다. 헌법 제119조제1항과 제2항은 국가에게 경제상의 자유와 창의의 존중과 경제의 규제와 조정을 함께 고려하도록 명령하고 있다. 따라서 민간주택에 대한 분양원가 공개라는 초강력 규제조치를 수단으로 선택하는 것은 제119조의 관점에서도 부적절하다고 판단된다. 분양원가의 공개는 우리나라 경제입법상 유례가 없음은 물론 자본주의 시장경제질서를 유지하고 있는 어떠한 나라도 채택하지 않은 제도이다. 이에 따라 주택시장 외에 공공재적 성격을 지닌 어떤 시장에서도 시장 정상화를 위해 이와 같은 제도가 도입되는 것을 허용할 수 밖에 없다. 결국 민간택지에까지 분양원가 공개제도를 도입함으로써 민간 건설업체의 영업의 자유내지 직업수행의 자유를 과도하게 침해할 가능성이 높아 위헌성이 있는 것으로 볼 수 밖에 없다. 더구나 공공주택과 민간주택에 있어 강화된 토지재산권의 사회적 기속성에 불구하고 민간주택의 경우에는 사유재산제의 보장이 더욱 강화되어야 하는 것이 헌법적 요청임에도 불구하고 공공주택과는 그 법적 구조가 전혀 다른 민간주택에까지 분양원가 공개제도를 도입한 것은 기본권 침해의 가능성이 크다. 공공주택과 달리 민간주택 건설 분야는 고도의 시장경제원리가 지배하는 영역이라고 할 수 있으므로 다양한 부동산정책이나 세제정책을 통한 공익의 실현과는 달리, 고도의 영업 비밀에 해당하는 분양원가를 공개하도록 법령으로써 강제하는 것은 비례의 원칙(과잉금지의 원칙)을 침해하여 위헌의 소지가 있다고 할 것이므로 이를 폐지하는 방향으로 조속한 입법개선 조치가 이루어져야 할 것이다.