상가임대차법 제10조의 위헌성 및 개선방안 = Unconstitutionality and Improvement of article 10 of Commercial Building Tenants` Protection Law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Survival of the contract is significant when it is possible to achieve the objectives of the contract. However, the opinion was raised from the time of enactment that the current regulations, which only specifies the veto rights to renew to the lessor, can be overly protective. In light of this background, in this study, I will investigate the Article 10 of the Shopping Center Lease Protection Act(hereinafter the Act) which defines a shopping center lease period to see the unconstitutionality and the directions of system. The study results show that there is no practical benefit of statutory cancellation as defining the reason for statutory cancellation as the right to refuse renewal, and cancellation by contract is also not permitted by mandatory provisions. So the legal relations are actually likely to continue by choice of the lessee no matter what happens. However this regulation is overly protected, even though it meets the legitimacy of purpose, it doesn`t meet requirement of appropriateness of means, minimum of infringement and comparison sentence. And it is considered that it infringes the protection of right to pursue happiness because it deprives possibility to avoid while unilaterally imput market risk by forced period and do not allow any right of termination. It is discriminatory outcome of this paper that it derived the need for the provision of statutory cancellation reason by considering the constitutional value related to survival of the contract, and presented statutory cancellation reason and the right to refuse renewal reason. However, subjects of the study are limited to the current provisions, those missing parts are issues to be resolved in subsequent studies. If I distinguish the statutory cancellation reason and the refuse renewal reason through more variety case study, it would help develop more significant system that revives the purpose of legislation in harmony with the legal system

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "헌법재판소 1996.12.26. 선고96헌가18"

2 "헌법재판소 1992.12.24. 선고92헌가8"

3 "헌법재판소 1989.12.22. 선고88헌가13"

4 소재선, "프랑스不動産法上 不動産賃貸借·不動産仲介·不動産組合의 構造와 特性" 한국토지공법학회 40 : 499-523, 2008

5 "창원지법 2004.11.12. 선고 2004가단260"

6 "의정부지법 고양지원 2004.10.5. 선고 2004가단4372"

7 "수원지법 2004.9.24. 선고 2004가단12172"

8 "수원지법 2004.11.11. 선고 2004가단29909"

9 "서울중앙지법 2013.6.5. 선고 2012가단5154111"

10 "서울중앙지법 2004.8.26. 선고 2003가단379326"

11 "서울중앙지법 2004.8.17. 선고 2003나55089"

12 "서울중앙지법 2004.7.2. 선고 2003가단460901"

13 "서울중앙지법 2004.7.14. 선고 2004가단2746"

14 "서울중앙지법 2004.3.5. 선고 2003가합63871"

15 "서울중앙지법 2004.3.11. 선고 2003가단332228"

16 "서울서부지법 2006.11.1 선고 2006가합3158"

17 "서울서부지법 2004.9.10. 선고 2004가단5085"

18 "서울서부지법 2004.12.1. 선고 2004가단22745"

19 "서울동부지법 2004.8.26. 선고 2004가합3220"

20 "서울동부지법 2004.7.20. 선고 2004가단6741"

21 "서울남부지법 2004.8.13. 선고 2004가단8658"

22 "서울 파이낸스"

23 김남근, "상가건물임대차보호법의 제문제" 대한변호사협회 310 : 2002

24 이재진, "상가건물임대차보호법의 실효성에 관한 연구" 건국대학교 부동산대학원 2004

25 정수경, "상가건물임대차보호법의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구" 부산대학교 대학원 2009

26 권용산, "상가건물임대차보호법의 문제점과 개선방안" 청주대 대학원 2003

27 이영재, "상가건물임대차보호법의 문제점과 개선방안" 한국지적정보학회 5 : 2003

28 윤길홍, "상가건물임대차보호법의 문제점" 한국비교사법학회 9 (9): 2002

29 윤철홍, "상가건물임대차보호법의 문제점"

30 권영수, "상가건물임대차보호법에 대한 위헌성 분석" 한국감정평가학회 10 (10): 49-67, 2011

31 김재훈, "상가건물임대차보호법에 관한 고찰" 경상대학교 대학원 2004

32 오호철, "상가건물임대차보호법상 문제점과 개선방향에 관한 연구" 한국지적정보학회 10 (10): 1-20, 2008

33 윤길홍, "상가건물임대인 보호를 위한 상가임대차보호법" 2001

34 임성근, "상가 등 임대차보호관련법안에 관한 공청회" 국회법제사법위원회(제224회), 국회사무처 2001

35 마상천, "상가 등 임대차보호관련법안에 관한 공청회" 국회법제사법위원회(제224회), 국회사무처 2001

36 "부산지법 2004.9.6. 선고 2004가단70457"

37 "동경지법 쇼와62.6.16판시1269호101항"

38 "대법원 1994.02.25. 선고 93누20726"

39 "대구지법 2008.7.22. 선고 2008나8841"

40 "노컷뉴스"

41 "http://blog.naver.com/homels_h1?Redirect=Log&logNo=30016221110"