The absolute right of property in modern capitalistic society, which has been regarded as the sacred and inviolable rights of
man, has become inevitable to be modified due to the ever-growing contradictions of capitalism. It has turned into relative...
The absolute right of property in modern capitalistic society, which has been regarded as the sacred and inviolable rights of
man, has become inevitable to be modified due to the ever-growing contradictions of capitalism. It has turned into relative civil liberties with the amergence of the basic human rights or the
right to live, and consequently the conception of property rights is broadened from the material ownership of enterprise and landowner to the right of all assets which have property value.
The Constitution of our country also reflects such contradictions in relation to the guarantee of property rights. In other words, the Constitution guarantees the right of property on the one hand. The principle of guaranteeing the right of property
is declared in the first part of Para. 1 Article 23 of the Constitution, basing on a traditional liberalistic spirit of nationalism. The latter part of Para 1 of Art 23, Para 2 and Para 3 of the same article may be considered reflecting a view of social welfare state.
It is intended in the present paper to inquire into the dual system of stipulating the right of property in our Constitution in conformity with the ideas it pursues.
Chapter 1 is devoted to the introduction of the study which describes specifically the purpose, scope and method of the study which consists of six chapters.
Chapter 2 discusses the transitional process of legislation of guaranteeing the right of property from the point of view of legal history and that of its ideas and concept.
Chapter 3 deals with the guarantee system of property rights in our Constitution by classifying its objects into tangible, intangible and special property rights.
Chapter 4 describes the restrictive system of property rights in the Constitution and the limit of individual property rights such as farmland and interpretation of Chapter 9 of the economic order. The relations between Article 23 Para 2 of Art and 37, between the public welf are of Para 2 and public necessity of
Para 3 Art 23, are theoretically discussed. The limit of restricting property rights is reviewed in relation to the structural principle of the Constitution.
Chapter 5 deals with the intro"duction of the public conception of landownership in our country. As it has become a worldwide trend in recent years, the contents of its legislative
bill aimed primarily at restricting legally the right of property are specifically discussed. The ceiling system of landownership and licence system of land transactions over which a heated argument has taken place recently are criticized from an unconstitutional point of view. The unconstitutionality of such systems is accentuated by indicating emphatically the absolute necessity of maintaining the capitalistic economic system which makes the private ownership and the priniple of private autonomy as its main axis. And also, the necessity of enacting a basic land law is suggested in connection with the public conception of Landownership which is intended to control positively land speculation and windfall incomes.
Chapter 6 is devoted to the conclusion of this study is which the results obtained are summarized. The right of property-is of compound nature which could not be prescribed simply as civil liberties or the right to live. Therefore the harmonization of guarantee and restriction is emphasized in due consideration of our historical background and national institution. It is
further stressed that the right of property should be interpreted flexibly in conformity with the idea of the Constitution and realities.