개발제한구역지정에 따른 손실보상 - 헌법제23조와의 관계에 의한 해석론 - = A Demage Compensation for Appointment of a Development Limited Area - Study on Analysis Theory that is Connected with Constitution Article 23 of Korea -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

1. CONTENTS
(1) RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Purpose of research, reappraising damage compensation theory about greenbelt appointment regarding constitutional law article 23, is to contribute in damage compensation theory development and furthermore to contribute to guarantee in people's property rights.
(2) RESEARCH METHOD
To introduce "Bundesgerichtshof' Schwellentheorie" and "Bundsverfassung -sgericht' Trennungstheorie" of Germany, Examine damage compensation theory of previous our country, and examine and analyze precedent of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court.
(3) RESEARCH RESULTS
Separation theory(Trennungstheorie) of commonwealth Constitutional Court(Bundsverfassungsgericht) of Germany keeps away extension that exceed of accommodation concept, and logical analysis of Germany' constitutional law, respective independence of the three powers, developed analysis of new accommodation theory for people's continued existence guarantee and so on of property rights furthermore.
Separation theory grasps from contents of property rights to problem of legislation formation. Because grasp Germany constitutional law article 14 the first clause, the second clauses to contents of property rights. On the other hand, accommodation grasped by area that need compensation.
Separation theory can be suitable in respective independence of the three powers, and seek variety in civilianizations' property rights guarantee than border theory, and there is advantage that can pare down burdensome business defrayment as court.
2. RESULTS
Examined, regarding damage compensation theory. analysis loan of the Germany Supreme Court and constitutional court and analysis our country Supreme Court and of constitutional court.
The Germany Supreme Court of the United States grasps property rights limitation form into emaciated look with social binding, and social binding is limitation that there is no radish of compensation, and accommodation grasped by social regulation that it is radish of compensation. That is, social regulation is accepted if social regulation omits limit(border theory).
The Germany commonwealth Constitutional Court is prevention of extension that exceed of accommodation concept, logical analysis of Germany fundamental law, respective independence of the three powers, grew new accommodation theory for people's continued existence guarantee of property rights and so on. furthermore. New accommodation theory says that is separation theory or cutting theory, this social binding and expropriation grasp by different area and social binding grasps to contents of property rights, and accommodation grasped by limitation of property rights.
(Germany constitutional law(Verfassungsrecht) article 14 the first clause, the second clauses) There is advantage that can be suitable in priority respective independence of the three powers by advantage of separation theory, and seek variety in people' property rights guarantee, and can pare down burdensome business defrayment as court. Our constitution article 23 is placed in situation similar to Germany by relation similar to Germany. Our Supreme Court falls in love though is gaining border theory and the Constitutional Court is selecting separation theory.
By the way, our constitution is prescribing use as well as accommodation, limitation unlike Germany fundamental law (Verfassungsrecht) from article 23 the third clauses, is recognizing concept of official business infringement extensively more than Germany fundamental law. Close intimacy of greenbelt that is type of qualification of property rights is that do official business saliva and is public opinion type.
And by property restriction in public that appointment of greenbelt is property rights form, must keep package deal clause in case escape limit of social binding. in this case, thing which apply and foretell special sacrifice theory (sonderopfertheorie) by standard that judge if escaped limit of social bind

목차 (Table of Contents)

• ABSTRACT
• Ⅰ. 序論
• Ⅱ. 公用制限의 性質-社會的 拘束性
• Ⅲ. 社會的 拘束性의 限界에 대한 判斷
• Ⅳ. 財産權制限 立法(“開制法”)의 違憲性여부
• Ⅴ. 結論
• 參考文獻

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "헌법이론과 헌법" 박영사 1989.

2 "행정법학(상)" 한국외대출판부 2002.

3 "행정법(상)" 박영사 11-, 2000

4 "최신행정법론" 법문사 2003.

5 "최신행정법강의(상)" 박영사 1997.

6 "재산권제한에 관한 입법기준" 한국부동산학회 23 : 2004.12.

7 "재산권의 내용을 새로이 형성하는 법규정의 헌법적 문제" 한국법학원 1999

8 "손실보상법론" 삼영사 2005.

9 "부동산학원론" 형설출판사 2005.

10 "부동산중개론" 형설출판사 2005.

11 "독일공법상의 수용과 보상" 토지공법학회 17. : 2003.2

12 "공법학의 현대적 지평" 박영사 1995.

13 "개발제한구역지정에 관한 도시계획법 제21조 제1항 제2항의 위헌 여부"

14 "감정평가 및 보상법론" 형설출판사 2004.

15 "Abstufungen in der Sozialbindung des Eigentums" 90-, 1996