미국 연방헌법상 재산권 수용에 관한 연구 = Study on the Taking of Properties in the U.S. Constitution

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. This clause places two limitations on the government when it takes private property. The government has to take private property only for public use and pay just compensation for the private owner. The Fifth Amendment allows private property to be taken by eminent domain only for public use. The U.S. Supreme Court cases survey informs us that the term ‘public use’ has been broadly interpreted by the Court. Takings scholarship has focused primarily on the liability question, that is, what government actions are counted as takings of private property. Until now, considerable uncertainties have prevailed regarding the appropriate criteria to distinguish between compensable and noncompensable impositions of property losses by the government. In solving this issue, it is a prior condition that it has to be considered what criteria might best serve to draw the taking-regulation distinction.
This article examines the theories on taking of private property, especially focusing on types and conditions of taking in the U.S. Supreme Court cases. That's why most theories on the taking of private property have been embodied through interpretation of the cases by the U.S. Supreme Court, even though they seem to be often unclear and inconsistent.
Chapter Ⅰ introduces the meaning of researching the legal issues in takings problem. Chapter Ⅱ brings in and explores key matters of the taking clause in the U.S. Constitution. Chapter Ⅲ examines an analysis of takings' essentials, such as eminent domain, the taking-regulation distinction, the variation in the U.S. Supreme Court's approaches about it and the evolution of the concept of what constitutes public use. Chapter Ⅳ generally deals with a comparative study about legal systems of taking in both Korea and the U.S. Finally we can find that there are many legal points which are similar to those of korean taking system and also that there are the peculiar legal points of U.S. taking system, mainly embodied by the U.S. Supreme Court cases.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Abstract
• Ⅰ. 서 론
• Ⅱ. 미연방헌법상 재산권 수용의 근거와 주요 논점
• Ⅲ. 수용요건의 분석
• Ⅳ. 미국과 우리나라에서 재산권 수용의 비교논의
• Ⅴ. 맺는 말
• 참고문헌

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 허? 영, "한국헌법론" 박영사 2007

2 김민호, "사인에 대한 공용수용권 특허의 위헌성 검토 - 미국의 사례를 중심으로 -" 한국토지공법학회 26 : 197-210, 2005

3 이기한, "미국헌법상의 연방대법원의 손실보상의 판단기준" 국제헌법학회한국학회 12 (12): 215-244, 2006

4 김민호, "미국의 규제적 수용에 있어 공익과 사익의 조정" 한국토지공법학회 16 (16): 73-92, 2002

5 김문현, "미국연방헌법상 공용수용과 경찰권에 의한 규제의 구별기준" 미국헌법학회 11 : 308-333, 2000

6 신? 평, "미국에서의 사적 개발목적을 위한 공용수용" 한국법학원 73-94, 2006

7 이동찬, "미국에서의 공적사용의 변화에 따른 판례의 동향" 한국토지공법학회 39 : 391-410, 2008

8 정연주, "미국 헌법상 재산권수용의 법리- 수용의 허용조건과 관련한 연방대법원 판례를 중심으로" 미국헌법학회 16 (16): 77-100, 2005

9 鄭夏明, "미국 연방헌법상 공적 사용과 경제개발" 한국토지공법학회 36 : 349-366, 2007

10 Coletta, Raymond R., "“The Measuring stick of regulatory takings: A biological and cultural analysis”, 1 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 20 (1998)"

11 Buckingham, Steven E., "“The Kelo threshold: Private and public use reconsidered”, 39 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1279 (2005)"

12 Echeverria, John D., "“Takings and Errors”, 51 Ala. L. Rev. 1047 (2000)"

13 Lindfors, Terri L., "“Regulatory takings and the expansion of burdens on common citizens”, 24 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 255 (1998)"

14 Freilich, Robert, "“Regulatory taking: Factoring partial deprivations into the taking equation”, in Takings: Land-Development Conditions and Regulatory Takings After Dolan and Lucas 165 (1996)"

15 Draeger, Tonya R., "“Property as a fundamental right in the United States and Germany: A comparison of Takings jurisprudence”, 14 The Transnational Lawyer 363 (2001)"

16 Hetzel, Otto J., "“Assessing the impact of Dolan v. City of Tigard on local governments' land-use powers”, In Taking: Land-Development Conditions and Regulatory Takings after Dolan and Lucas 219 (1996)"

17 Humbach, J. A., "“A Unifying theory for the just compensation cases: Takings, regulation and public use”, 34 Rutgers L. Rev. 243 (1982)"

18 "The Supreme Court-Leading Cases, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 287 (2005)"

19 신평, "Eminent Domain에 관한 미국 연방대법원 Kelo v. New London 사건분석" 국제헌법학회한국학회 12 (12): 187-214, 2006