土地所有權의 制限과 그 限界에 관한 比較法的 硏究

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Land is not only one of major assets, but also the foundation and environment of our lives. Besides, because land is so much essential to our existence and economic production, it is legalbasis for our society where the private ownership is established and performed.
The concept of land ownership is changing from the ancient society to present society along with the human history. And the system of regulating land ownership is also changing up to now.
In our society, where the private ownership is recognized and protected, the land ownership is basically secured by The Constitution clause 23 and The Civil Law clause 211, but the detailed right and obligations can be regulated by law. By the nature of land, the use of land should be different from the other type of ownership, serving the interest of whole society and most of citizens.
Land ownership, only when for national security, maintaining social order, and public welfare, might restrict by law. But, in this case, the basic and fundamentalaspect of land ownership should not be violated. Especially, in the case of restrict on the ownership for social welfare, the balance between public interest and security of ownership, so-called balance principle, must be kept. Under the current Constitution, the restriction on the land ownership is only permitted by law, and the deprivation of land ownership by retroactive legislation is prohibited, too. Furthermore, in this case, the human dignity and value as well as equity principle, balance principle, prohibition principle of excessive violation and compensation principle should be kept and applied in full scale.
Therefore, the restriction and limit on the disposal, usage, development and selling of land might be done only by law in a predetermined way. Even in this case, the fundamental aspect of land ownership cannot be violated, evading breach of Constitution.
In addition, the restriction on the land ownership should follow the social and public purpose for national goals within the social welfare application.
In short, in this society, even though it is the tendency of strengthening restriction on the land ownership, that restriction should be within the minimum level following the principle of protection of private ownership, and moreover, the legislation on the limit of land ownership should be logical and rational.
Therefore, in this study, I research the detailed restriction and protection on the land ownership and related legislation. In addition, I study the limitation on the private ownership, excessive regulation on land ownership, and the issue of dividing the ownership and development right. Through this study, I review whether the fundamental aspect of private ownership is violated or not and propose the rational method for limitation on the land ownership.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 第1章 序論 = 1
• 第1節 硏究의 目的 = 1
• 第2節 硏究의 範圍와 方法 = 2
• Ⅰ. 硏究의 範圍 = 2
• Ⅱ. 硏究의 方法 = 3
• 第2章 土地所有權의 變遷과 制限의 根據 = 4
• 第1節 序說 = 4
• 第2節 土地所有權 槪念의 時代的 變遷 = 4
• Ⅰ. 原始社會의 共同所有權 = 4
• Ⅱ. 古代 그리스ㆍ로마의 土地所有權 = 5
• 1. 古代 그리스(Greece)의 所有權 = 5
• 2. 古代 로마(Roma)의 土地所有權 = 6
• 3. 古代 게르만(German)社會의 土地所有權 = 7
• Ⅲ. 中世의 分割所有權 = 8
• Ⅳ. 近代社會의 絶對的 土地所有權 = 9
• Ⅴ. 現代의 所有權絶對原則의 修正 = 10
• 第3節 國家別 土地所有權의 變遷 = 13
• Ⅰ. 英國 = 13
• 1. 大土地所有의 成立과 展開 = 13
• 2. 近代的 不動産 法制의 展開 = 15
• Ⅱ. 프랑스 = 16
• 1. 人權宣言과 所有權不可侵의 原則 = 16
• 2. 프랑스 民法과 土地所有權 = 16
• 3. 몽타냐르憲法典(Constitution Montagnarde)에 있어서의 所有權 = 17
• 4. 나폴레옹法典(Napoleon法典)에 있어서의 所有權 = 17
• Ⅲ. 獨逸 = 18
• 1. 獨逸 民法과 土地所有權 = 18
• 2. 바이마르憲法(Weimarer Verfassung)과 所有權 = 19
• 3. 나치스(Nazis)의 所有權 = 21
• Ⅳ. 日本 = 23
• 1. 序論 = 23
• 2. 土地所有權 變遷의 歷史的인 特徵 = 24
• Ⅴ. 中國 = 25
• 1. 中國의 土地所有制度 = 25
• 2. 不動産所有制度의 內容 = 29
• Ⅵ. 우리나라 = 35
• 1. 近代以前의 土地所有 = 35
• 2. 近代의 土地所有 = 38
• Ⅶ. 比較法的 檢討 = 39
• 第4節 土地所有權의 變遷에 따른 制限의 根據 = 41
• Ⅰ. 所有權의 根本思想 = 42
• Ⅱ. 發展過程 = 43
• Ⅲ. 小結 = 44
• 第3章 國家別 土地所有權의 制限과 그 限界 = 46
• 第1節 英國 = 46
• Ⅰ. 土地所有權의 制限 = 46
• 1. 王土思想 = 46
• 2. 土地規制立法의 歷史的 變遷과 內用 = 47
• Ⅱ. 土地所有權 制限의 限界 = 49
• 第2節 프랑스 = 50
• Ⅰ. 土地所有權의 制限 = 50
• 1. 都市計劃 및 都市整備制度 = 50
• 2. 土地規制立法의 變遷과 內用 = 52
• Ⅱ. 土地所有權 制限의 限界 = 53
• 第3節 獨逸 = 54
• Ⅰ. 土地所有權의 制限 = 54
• 1. 土地所有權 制限의 歷史 = 54
• 2. 土地規制立法의 歷史的 變遷과 內用 = 55
• Ⅱ. 土地所有權 制限의 限界 = 58
• 第4節 日本 = 59
• Ⅰ. 土地所有權의 制限 = 60
• 1. 槪說 = 60
• 2. 土地規制 立法의 歷史的 變遷과 內用 = 61
• Ⅱ. 土地所有權 制限의 限界 = 63
• 第5節 中 國 = 64
• Ⅰ. 土地所有權의 制限 = 65
• 1. 中國社會主義 土地制度 = 65
• 2. 農村土地制度 改革 = 69
• 3. 都市土地制度 改革 = 70
• Ⅱ. 土地所有權 制限의 限界 = 71
• 第4章 現行 우리의 土地所有權 制限과 그 限界 = 73
• 第1節 土地所有權의 制限 = 73
• Ⅰ. 民法上의 制限 = 73
• 1. 信義誠實의 原則 = 73
• 2. 權利濫用禁止 = 73
• 3. 相隣關係 = 74
• 4. 法律行爲에 의한 制限 = 75
• 5. 正當防衛와 緊急避難 = 75
• Ⅱ. 憲法上의 制限 = 76
• Ⅲ. 其他 土地所有權 制限의 法律 = 77
• 1. 土地使用權의 制限 = 77
• 2. 土地收益法의 制限 = 83
• 3. 土地處分權의 制限 = 85
• 第2節 土地所有權 制限의 限界 = 91
• Ⅰ. 序說 = 91
• Ⅱ. 法律에 의한 制限의 原則 = 93
• Ⅲ. 公共必要라는 目的上의 原則 = 94
• Ⅳ. 過剩禁止의 原則 = 94
• 1. 槪念과 性格 = 95
• 2. 歷史 = 96
• 3. 內容 = 98
• Ⅴ. 本質的 內容侵害 禁止의 原則 = 101
• 1. 序說 = 101
• 2. 適用範圍 = 102
• 3. 基本權의 本質的 內容 = 102
• Ⅵ. 補償의 原則 = 105
• 1. 意義 = 105
• 2. 區別의 基準 = 106
• 3. 補償規定 없는 法律에 의한 財産權侵害와 損失補償 = 111
• 第3節 比較法的 檢討 = 113
• Ⅰ. 土地所有權의 制限 = 113
• Ⅱ. 土地所有權 制限의 限界 = 117
• 第5章 結論 = 122
• 參考文獻 = 124
• ABSTRACT = 129