재산권규정의 재해석을 통한 재산권 최고규범으로서 사적 자치 = The Private Autonomy as the Property of the highest standards through a Reinterpretation of Property Regulations

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Analysis of the existing rights of the attitude of the Constitution limits the property rights were guaranteed with a focus on value. But here comes in with a focus on ensuring that the value beyond the physical security to ensure the rights of human subjects for the change of direction is needed. To ensure the security value beyond that of survival analysis is needed to shift direction. To ensure the security value beyond that of survival analysis is needed to shift direction. Ensure continued human rights as guaranteed to the subject property for the fair value is simply to ensure that not just driving, is the subject of rights the right to free exercise rights (the right to freedom of exercising of the rights, as well as events including not exercising) achieved by ensuring can be, Moreover, the meaning of the private self re commanded by the Constitution to achieve this, it is important to guarantee the existence of property rights. However, the existence of these guarantees on property rights issues as a matter of public law and judicial superiority over the zoom is not required, Only the rights of both the shape and features distinguished`s just stupidity in not distinguishing. In addition, quantum effects that Formation law of other Areas of law not be ruled out. That is the distinction between public law and judicial order, but as the mutual recognition should be embraced. The Constitutional Court on our property is used as a general principle ㆍ information deemed essential to the understanding of the disposition are. However, the nature of property ownership to qualify this by understanding that a theory is only appropriate. That theory can not be applied to other property in front of lover looked. Moreover, the attitude of the judiciary on the rights, inter alia, civil law, especially against the bond been studied intensively and gradually expanded the importance of going if you see the light of current trends is not appropriate. Therefore, restrictions on rights of the Constitutional Court again, should be studied by every right to be considered.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김철수, "헌법학개론" 박영사 2005

2 김학성, "헌법학강의" 성민사 2001

3 장영철, "헌법상의 계약자유의 의미와 보호" 고시연구사 31 (31): 2004

4 이부하, "헌법상 토지재산권의 보장 및 그 제한 법률에 대한 합헌성" 한국토지공법학회 43 (43): 227-246, 2009

5 김대환, "헌법상 보장된 자유와 권리의 제한의 한계로서 본질적 내용 침해 금지" 경성대학교 법학연구소 14 (14): 2005

6 한수웅, "헌법 제37조제2항의 過剩禁止原則의 意味와 適用範圍" 한국법학원 (95) : 5-28, 2006

7 김남진, "행정법의 기본문제" 법문사 1996

8 문흥주, "한국헌법" 해암사 1980

9 이영준, "한국민법론(총칙편)" 박영사 2003

10 오시영, "채권총칙" 학현사 2009

11 석종현, "종합토지세의 과세표준과 세율상의 문제점" 토지공법학회 2 : 1996

12 송희성, "재산권의 존속보장과 공공필요의 요건" 고시연구사 21 (21): 1994

13 김대환, "우리나라 헌법상 과잉금지원칙-특히 기본권의 본질적내용 침해금지원칙과의 관계를 포함하여-" 한국비교공법학회 6 (6): 191-224, 2005

14 신봉기, "신정부하에서의 토지정책 검토" 토지공법연구 6 : 1998

15 송덕수, "신민법강의" 박영사 2012

16 권오승, "사적자치의 우선" 국가고시학회 31 (31): 1986

17 김상용, "사적자치원칙의 향후과제" 고시연구사 17 (17): 1990

18 제철웅, "사적 자치와 공익의 상호관계" 법학연구소 47 (47): 121-154, 2006

19 강태수, "본질적 내용의 침해금지규정에 관한 연구" 청주대학교 출판부 13 : 1998

20 남윤봉, "법학일반론" 법경출판사 2001

21 김규완, "민법학강의(제10판)" 신조사(서울) 2011

22 곽윤직, "민법총칙(7판)" 박영사 2002

23 김재형, "민법총칙 제8판(전면개정)" 박영사 2012

24 백태승, "민법총칙" 법문사 2000

25 이영준, "민법의 지도원리로서의 사적자치 - 민법개정초안에 언급하여 -" 법조협회 (527) : 2000

26 조성민, "물권법" 두성사 2010

27 강태수, "기본권의 보호영역, 제한 및 제한의 한계, In 정천허영박사화갑기념논문 ｢한국에서의 기본권이론의 형성과 발전｣" 박영사 1997

28 박수곤, "憲法上 財産權秩序와 私的自治 - 憲法裁判所의 태도에 대한 私法的 視覺에서의 再照明 -" 한국법정책학회 8 (8): 433-464, 2008

29 정종휴, "契約의 拘束力의 根據 -日本에서의 論議를 中心으로-" 한국민사법학회 (37) : 421-452, 2007

30 W. Böhmer, "Grundfragen der verfassungsrechtlichen Gewährleistung des Eigentums in der Rechtsprechung des BVerfG" 1988

31 Hoffman-Reim, "Buri. Öffentliches Recht und Privatrecht, In Grundlagen des Verwaltungsrechts, Bd. I" 2006

32 W. Leisner, "Bestandsgarantie des Eigentums" 1988