행정내부규율사항론(行政內部規律事項論)

이상천 ( Sang Cheon Lee ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2010 법학논총 Vol.34 No.2

`Inner-Autonomous Items in Administration` has not had so much spotlight in Administrative Law. There have been no so deep study on it. The traditional study on Special Power Relations has not been discussed under the premise of the conception, `Inner-Autonomous Items in Administration`. It has been treated only as a kind of conception of results. Thus it has not taken a leading role in Administrative Law and has had little recognitions. But We should deduce the conception of items `Inner-Autonomous Items in Administration` from the view point of the whole legal order and by utilizing the conception of `Inner-Autonomous Items in Administration` we should take the conception. Thus we should study the concerned parts of Administration Law and make use of the theory on it to access administrative law. The way of recognizing it in functional way helps us solve the unsolved problems easily. The `Inner-Autonomous Items in Administration` is the core of administration. The study of `Inner-Autonomous Items in Administration` helps us find out the substance of Administration and by that analyse it more functionally. It is another way of access to the Administrative Law.

일조갈등의 豫防的 解消를 위한 立法論的 硏究

李相千(Lee Sang-Cheon) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2009 東亞法學 Vol.- No.45

The control of sunshine in building code is carried out through the conception of space i.e. height and distance, but the distribution of sunshine in the field of civil law is carried out by the hours of lasting sunshine. The sunshine conflicts are caused by the differences between the two means to guarantee sunshine. The sunshine interests have the characters of ‘game of zero sum’. Thus the essential function of the criteria of permitting building in concern with sunshine is the reasonable distribution of sunshine interests. From the above differences, the function of sunshine distribution through the existing building code is being carried out in a restricted degree. As in case of Japan, there are a little differences in the criteria of guaranteeing sunshine between civil law and administrative law. The standard law of building performance of Japan has the article that it should be decided by the hours of lasting shadow whether the right to enjoy sunshine infringed or not, but the case law by civil court has made decisions about shunshine infringement chiefly by the hours of lasting sunshine. Therefore, there are little severe conflicts surrounding sunshine in Japan, but in Korea there are so much severe cases of sunshine conflicts as the cases of injuction of building prohibition. Firstly, the presence of the differences between the two legal criteria dealing with sunshine in the above two legal fields is not consistent with our national legal feeling. we don't think it reasonable that the lawful building observing the criteria of permitting building is illegal in private law. Secondly, the existing building code is breaking the legal theory of ‘prohibition of inclusive mandate legistlation’, and the lower administrative legistlation doesn't go with the upper one. Thirdly, the negligence of the presence of the above differences come to the ‘nonperformance of necessary legistlation’ in theory of constitutional law. The differences should be removed at once. It is impossible and unreasonable that the criteria of sunshine in civil law be adjusted to the criteria of permitting building in building code. The criteria of permitting building should be revised according to the criteria of reasonable distribution of sunshine of case law in civil law. By that, in consideration of the revision, the civil court wouldn't accept any injunction of prohibiting building against the building under construction keeping the criteria of permitting building as long as under no special circumstances. If so, the sunshine conflicts would be much decreased, the new legistlation would be consistent with our national legal feeling, elevate the national spirits of observing law, and be helpful to the social peace.

정보화사회(情報化社會)에서의 공표(公表)

이상천 ( Lee Sang-cheon ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2010 외법논집 Vol.34 No.2

One of the characteristics of modern administration is diversity and variation, and the non-typical measures is being increased rapidly. Publicity is one of the examles of them. There are three kinds of publicity in administrative publicity. They are administrative procedural publicity, effect-seizing publicity, information serving publicity. Among them, information serving publicity can be diversified into three. They are fact-concerning materials-serving publicity, recommending publicity, public warning. Let's focus on the above 'public warning'. It is so powerful, especially dangerous to the special person concerned. The administration bureau became to be able to achieve its own goal by only publicizing the information collected. But the concerned could be damaged fatally by that. For that, publicity cann't be treated lightly in a degree of only publicizing information for public good. It could lead to the end of a person's life in information society. The administration's action is just only a simple publicity, but the damage of the victim is crucial. Thus the control of publicity is needed in both sides of substantial law and procedural one. For now, the control of publicity in side of procedural law is little discussed. Just a little of control of publicity is ongoing now in side of substantial law. But once the information is publicized to the outside by administration, it cann't be recovered forever. Thus the preventive and procedural control of it is more needed. We can take the directions as following. Firstly, It is proposed that there be procedural articles concerned with publicity in the ongoing administrative procedures act. Secondly, It is proposed that the opportunity of representing opinion be guaranteed for the one concerned with the publicity. Finally, It is proposed that the committee to determine to publicize the information or not be run to do that. It is not always true that the judge's conclusion is always what it should be. He can do wrong, commit errors. To lessen the risk of the judge's errors and to achieve participant democracy or administration, is strongly demanded the control of publicity in side of procedural law.

산학 기술 협력 참여기업의 참여목적, 참여프로그램, 만족도 평가

이상천(Sang Cheon Lee),배성문(Sung Moon Bae),박종훈(Jong Hun Park) 한국산업경영시스템학회 2016 한국산업경영시스템학회지 Vol.39 No.4

The engineering knowledge and technology is core driving forces of continuous growth in knowledge based society. Companies, the government, and universities are the subjects of an innovation and the cooperation between them is very important. Nowadays, the main purpose of industry-university cooperation moves to train experts and develop a new product. A shift of the paradigm came from the change of recognition that the final consumers of the program are companies and the universities are supporters of the program. In this paper, we investigate the purpose, participation and satisfaction of companies to industry-academy technology cooperation through empirical studies. The need to expert training, product development and process development makes companies participate industry-academy technology cooperation and companies have different purpose of participation by the business type. Companies often feel that expert training, subsidiary purpose of industry-academy technology cooperation, is more important than product development or process development. This result is caused by the real world environment of small and mid-size companies, lacking of technology experts. The participation of companies to each technology cooperation program (technology transfer, joint technology development, consigned technology development, technology consulting, co-op. lab.) is also different by business type. The companies’ satisfaction with the purpose of process development is relatively higher than that with the purpose of product development and companies show also different satisfaction value by business type and participating program. The results of this study can give a contribution to the design of demand oriented industry-academy technology cooperation model. 1)

행정심판법 제49조 제1항의 입법개정론

이상천(Lee, Sang-Cheon),조동제(Cho, Dong-Je) 경희법학연구소 2019 경희법학 Vol.54 No.1

행정심판법 제49조 제1항은 적어도 문리해석상은 피청구인의 법적 지위를 묻지 않고 행정심판의 인용재결이 있게 되면 무조건 피청구인은 불복할 수 없는 문리상의 구조로 되어 있다. 그런데 행정처분이 고권적 공권력의 행사로 발해지기도 하지만 때로는 공공기관의 정보 공개에 관한 법률 제18조 이하에서 보는 바와 같이 행정처분으로 의제하는 입법으로 인해 실질적으로는 청구인과 피청구인 사이의 대등한 당사자적 구도가 행정처분으로 왜곡되기도 한다. 예컨대 사립학교법인의 정보공개거부도 행정처분으로 의제되고 그 결과 교육의 자치가 강하게 요구되는 교육의 영역에서 국가중앙기관인 중앙행정심판위원회가 교육자치적 사항을 인용재결이라는 이름으로 최종결정해 버리는 결과가 초래되는 실정이다. 이에 그 불합리를 시정하는 차원에서 헌법합치적 해석을 위한 많은 견해의 대립이 있는 데 이는 입법에 있어서의 명확성의 원칙상으로도 문제가 있는 입법임을 나타내는 것이라 할 것이다. 그렇다면 그 헌법합치적 해석론의 취지에 맞게 그 불명확성을 제거할 필요가 있어 행정심판법 제49조 제1항을 “심판청구를 인용하는 재결은 피청구인과 그 밖의 관계 행정청을 기속한다. 피청구인에게 그 재결을 다툴 법률상 이익이 있는 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다.” 로 입법개정할 필요가 있을 것이다. 위 입법개정의 의미는, 첫째, 피청구인으로 하여금 인용재결을 다툼에 법률상 이익이 있는 경우 그 인용재결에 불복할 출소권을 보장해 주어 개괄주의적 요청을 충족시키는 것이다. 둘째, 피청구인에게도 법률상 이익이 있을 경우는 출소권을 보장하여 원고적격에 관한 일반론으로서의 이른바 보호규범론으로의 일체성을 도모하는 것이다. 관련규범의 체계적 합리적 해석으로 연역해 내는 이른바 보호규범론의 적용일 뿐이다. 셋째, 결코 특별한 예외를 규정하는 것이 아니라 행정심판의 종래적 기능인 행정의 자기통제적 장치로서의 의미나 신속한 권리구제적 기능은 그대로 보장되는 것이다. 물론 피청구인에게 위와 같은 인용재결을 다툴 법률상 이익이 있는 경우에는 반사적으로 청구인의 신속한 권리구제가 지연되는 결과는 피청구인을 평등하게 대한 결과일 뿐인 것이다. 넷째, 입법에 있어서의 원칙인 명확성의 원칙에 맞게 기존 조항을 수정한 것이다. 다섯째, 위 입법적 개정으로 종래 지방자치단체의 자치사무에 관한 인용재결 결과 중앙국 가기관인 중앙행정심판위원회가 최종심으로 판단해 버리던 자치권 침해의 부당함을 시정할 수 있게 되는 등 많은 자치단체등의 자치권 보장에 크게 힘을 실어주게 되어 민주주의적 요청에도 부응한다. By literally interpretation of the administrative trial Act § 49① It concludes that there is no way for the petitioner to take administrative litigation against the Administrative Trial Committee to revoke the accepted decision of administrative appeals regardless of the respondent’s legal status. Most of administrative measures are based on the high power of , but sometimes some are not based on the high power. The character of administrative measure is made by legal fiction. Truly the two parties have same positions in case of that. For example the denial to disclosure of information by the Education Foundation is regarded as a administrative measure and the result is that in case of Central Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s acceptance of appeal on faver of the applicant in autonomy of education. The Central Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s decision is final. In fact there are many controversies on the ways to cope with the above wrong conclusion. This means that the above legilation has big problem in the Definitude of Law Principle If so it is demanded that the vagueness existing in the administrative trial Act § 49 ① shoud be taken away. the administrative trial Act § 49① should be revised as follows “ A ruling recognizing an appeal shall be binding the appellee and other relevant administrative agencies involved in the case. But not in case that the appellee has legal interests for that case” The above revision bill means as follows, Firstly, the above revision satisfies the requests from the principle that every one who has legal interests for that case could take lawsuit. Secondly, even if in case that the applee has the legal interests for that case, he can take lawsuit to the court. It is just the adaptation of the theory of protected interests. Thirdly, this is not establishing the exceptional clause, the established fukctions of the Administrative Trial such as administraion’s self-control and prompt remedy are kept still in the administrative trial. Fourthly, It is just for the Definitude of Law Principle. Fifthly, this enables the public administration body of self-autonomy to take lawsuit in case of self-autonomy invasion on the ground of the right of self-autonomy. This commands the calls from democracy.

공법 : 독도(獨島)에 대한 법제간(法制間) 융합적(融合的) 연구(硏究)

이상천 ( Sang Cheon Lee ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2010 법학논총 Vol.27 No.2

Superficially, It was the fundamental basic theory of Kim Dae Joong`s government that the excessive strong doctrine for Dok-Do would hurt Korea`s interest in the disfutes surrounding the islands on WesternㆍSouthern Seas and result in damage of Korea in general. Korean government is still unwilling to argue for the positive policy for Dok-Do. The above reason can`t be answered for having rushed `New Agreement on Fisheries between the Republic of Korea and Japan` through National Parliament. Would it have been the compensation for Japan`s support in the time of so-called Korea`s IMF situation? I don`t know the true reason of it. It is true that we have given way to Japan too much through `New Agreement on Fisheries between the Republic of Korea and Japan`, and the economic distribution criteria in `medium waters` surrounding Dok-Do by the above agreement would be fixed forever. Nevertheless, Japan will never give up the argument of Japan` legal right for Dok-Do. If once the argument is transferred to the international judicial court in some balance of international powers and is sentenced to the advantage of Japan, we could lose even the control of medium waters. By this reason, we would know the accurate reason of the motive of `New Agreement on Fisheries between the Republic of Korea and Japan`. Japan would get more and more from Korea by only arguing for Dok-Do. As time goes by, Japan would try to get more from Korea in concern with Dok-Do. We could perceive Japan`s purpose toward Dok-Do during IMF situation. Even though they don`t succeed in getting Dok-Do, it wouldn`t hurt their interests. For they have no legal position about Dok-Do originally. We need the positive confrontation for Dok-Do against Japan. `New Agreement on Fisheries between the Republic of Korea and Japan` should be abolished gradually and nullified entirely at last. We should preserve the positive insistence that Dok-Do belongs to Korea, and it can command its own continental shelves and EEZ. The above insistence would never result in the damage of Korea` side even in consideration of the islands on Western·Southern Seas. Dok-Do is quite different from the other islands on Western·Southern Seas in size and purpose and so on. Thus Dok-Do takes quite different legal position in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We shouldn`t disregard Dok-Do as only simple `rocks`. The thought of getting interests from doing so is so naive one. Japan reconstructed Okinodorisima which is just only small `rocks`, and insists its continental shelves and EEZ. The low attitude about Dok-Do doesn`t suits to Dok-Do, and it is not reasonable. We need strong and positive policy about Dok-Do. To achieve the above goal, we should achieve the effective control over Dok-Do and need the small, but strong, efficient, professional governmental organ which is based on law of Parliament.

통일한국의 토지소유제도론

李相千(Lee, Sang-Cheon) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2015 東亞法學 Vol.- No.67

통일한국의 토지소유제도론으로는 북한내 몰수토지에 대한 원상회복·보상론과 바람직한 토지소유형태론이 있다. 북한내 몰수토지에 대한 원상회복·보상론과 관련하여서는 독일 판례의 남북한헌법질서에로의 발전적 응용이 필요할 것이다. 보상론에 있어서는 원칙적으로 북한사회를 인정하되 개인의 재산권 보장의 문제까지 덮을 일은 아니고 보편성을 가진 우리의 헌법정신에 비추어 비례의 원칙에 합당한 조치는 있어야 할 것이다. 독일 기본법과 우리의 헌법의 효력범위에 관련된 규정상 차이는 통일한국이 북한에 실시할 토지소유제도론에 반영되어야 할 것으로 구체적으로는 우리 헌법의 효력범위가 북한에도 상시적으로 미친다고 보아야 하는 관계상 북한 토지개혁으로 인한 보상조치가 좀 더 적극적으로 필요하다고 하게 될 것이다. 구체적으로는 농지에 대해서는 토지개혁준용설을 근거로 한 보상이 합리적이고, 국유화된 산림지·도시토지에 관하여는 보상이나 국토개발과 더불어 제자리대토를 고집하지 않는 대물보상 등의 방법을 혼용한 처리가 타당할 것이다. 토지소유형태론에 있어서는 이미 성공을 거둔 남한의 토지사유제도를 북한에 이식하는 방향이어야 할 것인데 그 근거는 첫째, 우리 헌법상 자유시장 경제질서를 근간으로 하고 있는 헌법의 효력이 한반도 및 부속도서에 미치고 북한의 파탄난 경제체제에서 취할 가치를 찾아볼 수 없는 이상 보편성을 띤 남한의 헌법적 가치를 전제로 남한의 토지사유제를 바꾸지 않는 이상 통일한국으로서의 북한지역에도 토지사유제는 실시되지 않을 수 없는 것이고, 둘째, 현실론적으로 남한은 토지사유제를 바탕으로 한강의 기적을 이루었고 다소 문제가 되는 단점은 통제할 여력을 갖추었기에 다른 방안으로 토지사유제를 흔들 것이 아니며, 셋째, 토지사유제만이 자본주의와 부합된다고 할 것은 아니나, 적어도 자원의 최적배분을 시장의 손에 맡기자는 그 정신에 가장 철저한 것으로 그로 인한 문제점은 보완 수정할 것이지 검증된 토지사유제를 흔들 것이 아니라 낙후된 북한경제를 위하여 토지사유제가 제 기능을 하게 할 필요가 있고, 넷째, 토지소유제도는 사실 이념적 대립에 가장 영향받기 쉬운 理念論親和的개념으로 통일한국에 이르러서는 북한주민들의 주장까지 감안할 때 자본주의와 공산주의의 이념적 대립으로 치환되는 사태가 생길지도 몰라 남한의 토지사유제도를 통일한국의 지향점으로 삼아 통일을 수습한다고하는 방향설정이 필요하다는 점 등을 들 수 있다. In concern with controversial compensation, there is a view that no compensation is needed for those who left the North Korea, but such a compensation according to the principle of proportionality would be needed for them. By that the Unified Korea could be called ‘nation by rule of law’ There are several patterns in concerned with land ownership system, which are called ‘land public ownership system’, ‘land public lease system’, ‘land-value public ownership system’ etc. In concern with land ownership system as formation of land ownership pattern, the private ownership system of South Korea should be applied to the North Area. The base of the above opinion is as following. Firstly, the Unified Korea should not stand in the middle of both sides in view of land ownership pattern. South Korea have strong stance on its private ownership system. The middle stance would be very dangerous to swing the Unified Korea. It would make he Unified Korea fall tinto confusion. Secondly, the private ownership system should be called as core of capitalism. A lot of theories have been developed around it. To continue the economic development after unification of Korea, the private ownership system should have firm stance on the Unified Korea of future. Thirdly, the South and the North should have same land ownership system in time of the Unified Korea, and never have its own different land ownership system each other. Thus the North should have the private ownership system. If the North and the South have its own land ownership system each other differently, it could lead to the economic confusion and delay the economic prosperity of the Unified Korea. Fourthly, there is a difference between constitutional law of Deutchland and that of S. Korea. It should be reflected to the realistic compensation by the Unified Korea. In concrete, the compensation by the Unified Korea is more needed for the original land owners than in case of Deutchland.

국내 벤처의 경영성과 영향요인 비교 분석에 관한 실증연구

이상천(Sang Cheon Lee),배성문(Sung Moon Bae),고봉상(Bong Sang Go) 한국전자거래학회 2008 한국전자거래학회지 Vol.13 No.4

본 연구는 국내 벤처기업의 경영성과를 결정하는 요인들을 통합된 연구 틀 안에서 규명해보고자 하는 목적으로 실시되었다. 이를 위하여 창업자/팀, 조직/자원, 전략/창업과정, 산업환경, 지원시스템을 경영성과 영향요인으로 정의하였으며 영역별 측정변수를 독립변수로, 경영성과를 종속변수로 하는 벤처 경영성과 통합 모형을 구축하고, 우수벤처와 열등벤처의 경영성과 영향요인을 실증적으로 검증하였다. 분석 결과, 우수기업의 경우 창업자 자신의 산업전문능력과 시장규모의 확대가 경영성과에 더 민감한 요인으로 작용하고 있으며, 열등기업의 경우 자원조달능력 및 경영 전략 역량이 민감한 요인으로 나타났다. 또한 우수기업과 열등기업을 나누는 핵심요인은 창업자의 능력 및 정부정책의 일치성으로 나타났다. 본 연구 결과는 표본수의 부족, 측정 척도의 미비 등 실증 연구의 한계를 가지고 있지만 통합된 연구 틀 안에서 우수 벤처기업의 핵심 성공 요인을 제시하는데 그 의미가 있다. The purpose of this study is to identify the determinants of new venture performance in the view of integrated research framework and to investigate key determinants of superior and inferior ventures. We propose the integrated new ventures performance model which is composed of entrepreneur, organization/resources, industrial environment, strategy/foundation process and availability of supporting systems as corresponding variables to new ventures performance. The superior venture performance is affected mainly by entrepreneur’s managerial ability and industry expertise, but the inferior by resources and management strategy. Though this study has limitation of small sample, limited questionnaire and performance measure, it has contribution of identifying key determinants of new venture performance with the integrated frame of study.

抽象的規範統制 導入을 위한 試論 : 行政立法에 대한 規範統制를 中心으로

李相千(Lee Sang Cheon) 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2011 法學論叢 Vol.25 No.-

抽象的 規範統制는 당해규범의 성립시부터 규범통제가 가능하게 되는 것이므로 당해규범의 성립 후 재판의 전제시까지 위헌상태의 지속이라는 시공적 상황을 없앨 수 있는 등 여러 順機能이 있어 가급적 도입함이 필요하다 할 것이나, 法律에 대한 抽象的 規範統制는 국회의 민주성이 훼손될 우려가 그 도입의 한계론으로 작용할 것이다. 이에 반해 命令 · 規則 등 行政立法은 그 통제가 오히려 헌법 내지 국회의 법률적 의사를 확보하는 것이라할 것이므로 그 도입은 꼭 필요하다 할 것이다. 규범의 통제는 권력분립론상 헌법에 없는 규범통제는 허용되지 아니한다고 할 것인데, 규범통제에 관한 현행 헌법의 태도는 법률의 경우와 하위규범의 경우를 나누어 규율하되 裁判의 前提가 된 경우에 규범통제가 이루어지는 것으로 못박고 있다. 헌법상 具體的 規範統制 채택이 추상적 규범통제를 배제한 것이냐에 관해 견해가 나누어진다. 이는 곧 헌법의 개정 없이 법률개정적 차원에서 行政立法에 대한 추상적 규범통제가 가능할 것인가의 문제로 憲法 제107조 제1항과 제2항에서의 ‘재판의 전제성’의 해석론의 일부라 할 수 있다. 우선, 추상적 규범통제의 효과를 내기 위한 하나의 방법으로 豫防的 禁止訴訟을 생각한다. 주관적 소송으로 豫防的 禁止訴訟을 도입하게 되면 그 침해의 근거되는 당해 行政立法의 효력을 裁判의 前提로 삼게 되는 것이므로 당해 豫防的 禁止訴訟을 통하여 행정입법은 구체적 규범통제로 통제되게 되는 것이어서 동소송의 도입은 사실상 抽象的 規範統制를 도입하는 셈이 되는 것이다. 위 豫防的 禁止訴訟은 법률적 차원의 제도라 할 것이므로 당연히 法律로 도입할 수 있는 것이라 할 것이다. 다음으로 위 ‘裁判의 前提’를 굳이 주관적 소송에 한정할 이유는 없을 것이어서 객관적 소송의 경우에도 裁判의 前提는 충족된다고 볼 것이다. 곧 민중소송이나 기관소송 등과 같은 객관적 소송의 경우에도 그러한 객관적 소송이 제기되면 그 객관적 소송의 제기 자체가 위 ‘재판의 전제성’을 충족하므로 객관적 소송으로 抽象的 規範統制를 도입하면 그만인 것이다. 결국 憲法 제107조 제1항 및 제2항의 ‘재판의 전제’는 具體的 規範統制로 한정한다는 의미가 아니라 ‘재판작용에서 필요할 때’라는 포괄적 의미로 가볍게 해석되어야 할 것이다. The conception of review on Norm is connected with ‘principle of seperation of power', and the review on Norm which is not based on Constitutional Law is not permitted. The article 17(1) of Koran Constitutional Law controls parliamentary legistlation and The article 17(2) of that does the subordinate Norm of parliamentary legistlation when each one is 'at issue in a trial'. The abstract review on Norm could function from the legistlation of the Norm concerned, and it could abolish the lasting unconstitutional situation, and it could keep social peace by lessening the legal conflicts of the future and correcting the deviation of social order. it is a kind of vaccine for keeping social peace. It is a very useful and effective way which could make up for the absence situation of no administrative way of remedy as in the case of conflicting situation between mother and her fetus. We had better have it as far as it could not hurt the national representation of the Parliamentary. If so, it matters that we could have the legal system of ''abstract review on Norm'' only through the revision of law without constitutional revision. It is concerned with the meaning of the part of Korean Constitutional Law which is 'when in the situation of 'being at issue in a trial' in the Article 107(1)(2) of Korean Constitutional Law. The part('when in the situation of 'being at issue in a trial') is not only applied to the cases of subjective legal disputes but also to the cases of objective legal ones. There's no reason of restricting its application boundary only to subjective legal disputes. Thus the cases of objective legal ones suffice the premise which is 'when in the situation of 'being at issue in a trial' In conclusion, 'when in the situation of 'being at issue in a trial' of the Article 107(1)(2) of Korean Constitutional Law should be interpreted as the meaning of 'when needed in judgement'. The load of pursuing administration occurred from the induction of ''abstract review on Norm'' is just in a temporary situation, it would lead to the harmonious relation between the administrative organ and the private. Constitutional Law sketches only the principal outline of 'National Norm'. It should not be interpreted in a narrow meaning but in a comprehensive way.

공유토지분할에 관한 특례법의 기능론적 구조에 대한 비판적 검토 - 공동주택단지로부터의 유치원 부지 분할문제를 중심으로 -

이상천 ( Sang Cheon Lee ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2015 법학논총 Vol.32 No.2

2014. 5. 21.자 공분할특법 개정의 핵심적 이유는 유치원부지 등도 동법의 적용대상으로 삼으면서 대규모 공동주택의 특성을 고려하여 공유토지의 분할을 촉진하기 위한 것이었으나, 그개정이 유치원부지 등과 공유관계로 등기되어 있는 공동주택부지로부터의 분할에 얼마나 도움을 줄 것인지에 대해서는 회의적이다. 공분할특법의 기능론상 구도는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 위원회의 공유토지분할개시의 결정 여부에 대하여는 기각결정을 제한하는 사유를 법정하고 있어 원칙적으로 형식적 요건을 갖추면 공유토지분할개시는 결정되어야 하는 것으로 되어있다. 그 불복은 이의신청인의 간단한 이의신청으로 가능하며 그것으로 분할개시결정은 취소되게 된다. 둘째, 위원회는 지적소관청의 영향력 하에 있다고 볼 수 있고, 지적소관청은 공동주택소유자 들의 민원에 취약한 것이므로 결국 유치원부지의 분할을 원하는 신청인에게 위원회의 결정은 불리하게 돌아가게 되어 있는 것이다. 위원회의 위원 9인 중 7인은 지적소관청이 지정하는 인사구성이기 때문이다. 셋째, 공유토지분할개시결정이 취소될 경우 분할신청인은 법원에 공유토지분할개시를 구하는 소를 제기할 수 있고(공분할특법 제20조 제1항), 필요적 공동소송상 그 소는 나머지 공유자 전원을 피고로 삼아 제기되어야 하는데, 피고 특정의 어려움으로 인해 제소가 불가능하여 분할 신청인으로서는 동위원회의 결정에 불복한 수단이 막혀 있는 셈이다. 결론적으로 최근 법개정의 핵심적 현재적 상황에서도 여전히 유치원부지등이 공동주택단지와 구분소유적 공유관계1)에서 다른 공유자 누군가가 다투기만 하면 여전히 공유로 남아있을 수밖에 없다. 이러한 기능적 구조로 인해 공분할특법상의 분할절차는 실무가에게는 단지 공유자 모두의 합의가 있을 때의 특별등기절차 정도로 인식되게 된 것이다. 위 비판적으로 검토한 결과의 입법론은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 공유토지분할개시결정의 기준과 이의신청의 기준을 통일적으로 구성하되 특히 그 실체적 판단기준을 좀더 구체화하고 절차적 기준도 정하여 공유토지분할위원회의 판단을 제어할 필요가 있을 것이다. 둘째, 공유토지분할위원회 위원의 구성에서 대부분 법률전문가를 널리 위원으로 영입하여 판단하게 함이 타당할 것이다. 동위원회의 결정은 사실상 공분할특법의 취지에 따라 판단할 것이 요구되는 재판작용이라 할 것이기 때문이다. 셋째, 공유토지분할위원회에 의한 공유토지분할개시결정의 여부에 처분성을 부여하여 이해 관계자들이 그 처분을 다투게 하는 방향의 입법이 필요할 것이다. 본고는 실효성의 면에서 개정입법을 비판적으로 검토한 것이고, 심각한 법체계적 부정합성이 헌법상 입법원칙의 한계를 넘은 것인지 등 위헌의 의혹과 관련된 문제에 대해서는 헌법학적 차원에서의 추가적 연구가 필요할 것이다. The “Act on Special Cases Concerning The Partition of Co-owned Lands” aims at helping partition of co-owned lands of seperating kindergarten site from its aggregate buildings site through simplifying the procedure of partition of co-owned lands. In fact, there is no substantial of procedural criteria to follow in decision on commencing partition of co-owned lands of co-owned land partition committee. Thus it could be said that the decision depends on co-owned land partition committee‘s almost free will in the objection against decision on commencing partition of co-owned lands of co-owned land partition committee. The composition of co-owned land partition committee is up to the competent authority to land register’ will, and the competent authority is unwilling to confllict with the residents of aggregate buildings. By that, as concerned with legal status the manager of kindergarten should be in lower position than the residents of aggregate buildings. In addition to that, the way of partition applicant’s objection against the decision by co-owned land partition committee is not to institute the lawsuit of appeal litigation to the decision itself, but to institute the lawsuit to seek a commencement of partition against all the other co-owners. But actually it is impossible to institute that lawsuit seek a commencement of partition due to the large number of other co-owners. The delivery of lawsuit bills to all the other co-owners could not be implemented. Under the above legal circumstances, co-owned land partition committee depends upon the will of the residents of aggregate buildings, and would follow it. The improper composition of co-owned land partition committee would not be made up for. Thereby, it would be better to change the composition of co-owned land partition committee. Fot rhe better implementation of the partition of co-owned lands, the following three should be suggested. Firstly, the criteria of decision on commencing partition of co-owned lands and its objection should be unified each other, and the criteria should be concretized more in detail. Secondly, the present composition of co-owned land partition committee should be changed into the stance that the influential power of the competent authority to land register should be shrimped as left only one member. The other members should be filled for co-owned land partition committee as legal professional persons. Thirdly, as concered with the objection against the decision of co-owned land partition committee in partition of co-owned lands the way objection against it should be the way of lawsuit of appeal litigation to the decision itself. The present legistlation is just the immune way of legistlation and should be averted. The present legistlation conflicts with the reason of legistlative amendment as now. It is ironical that the problem of delivery in the procedure of application of the act on special cases concerning the partition of co-owned lands is solved, but not the probem of delivery in instituting the lawsuit to seek the commencement of partition.