개정 주택임대차보호법의 문제점 검토 ― 계약갱신요구권과 전월세인상률 상한제의 한계를 중심으로 ― = A Review on the Revised Housing Lease Protection Act ― With main focus on the shortcomings of the right to demand renewal provision and the rent ceilings ―

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Housing Lease Protection Act (the “Protection Act”) which was first enacted as a special provision of the Civil Act for the purposes of protecting tenants was revised on July 31, 2020 to add the tenants’ right to demand renewal and the rent ceilings. This paper argues that the revised Protection Act’s right to demand renewal and the rent ceilings have fundamental flaws. While the principle of private autonomy which is more closely defined in the freedom of contract guarantees private citizens to freely choose their counterparts and the contents of their contracts, the revised Protection Act’s mandate violate these basic principles by forcing landlords to renew their current leases at the same level of rents by effectively taking away their freedom of contract.
Further, since the revised Protection Act has the characteristics of ex post facto law, it is important to note that the applicability of the revised Act should be limited so to not undermine the principle of preservation of the public trust and confidence in existing laws. While the need for protecting landlords’ trust and confidence in existing regulation is high, the public interest to be protected by the added provisions of the revised Protection Act is small, therefore resulting in violation of the principle of preservation of the public trust and confidence in existing laws. Even if the public interest to be protected by the revised Act weighs more than the private interest of landlords, by not including any transitional measures, the revised Act’s provisions may still violate the principle of preservation of the public trust and confidence in existing laws. Also, since there will be number of ways to possibly bypass or workaround the tenants’ right to demand renewal and the rent ceilings, the revised Protection Act’s real world applicability is in question as well.
In sum, the addition of the tenants’ right to demand renewal and the rent ceilings under the revised Protection Action must be repealed as they violate the principle of private autonomy under the Civil Act and the constitutional principle barring retroactive legislation. It is the opinion of the Author that by allowing the free market system to function itself and providing ample information to the market participants in conjunction with possible extension of the standard lease period (under Article 4 of the old Protection Act) from two years to three or four years would better serve as protection of tenants.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 성낙인, "헌법학" 법문사 2020

2 이부하, "헌법상 소급효금지의 원칙과 예외 ― 독일 연방헌법재판소 판례를 분석하며 ―" 세계헌법학회한국학회 17 (17): 1-24, 2011

3 "한은 ‘전세값 상승, 저금리보다 임대차법 후 수급불균형 탓’"

4 전광석, "한국헌법론" 집현재 2018

5 허영, "한국헌법론" 박영사 2018

6 김웅, "토지재산권 보장의 헌법적 의의와 한계" 한국법학회 20 (20): 179-200, 2020

7 곽윤직, "채권각론" 박영사 2003

8 이은영, "채권각론" 박영사 2005

9 김상용, "채권각론" 화산미디어 2014

10 "집 나가라, 못 나간다, 임대차 3법 후 분쟁접수 통계작성 후 최고"

11 김영희, "주택임대차에서 사적자치와 거래비용과 사법적극주의" 법학연구원 30 (30): 103-146, 2020

12 "전월세 상한제 합체 임대차 3법에 집주인 부글... 뻔뻔한 세입자 양산에 소송도급증(세입자 설움은 옛말...등골 휘는 임대인 넘쳐나)"

13 "전세 세입자도 ‘임대차3법 도움 안 돼’ 68% 부정 응답"

14 지원림, "저간의 부동산임대차 법제에 관하여: 능력의 한계 아니면 「의도된 오조준」?" 한국부동산법학회 24 (24): 3-17, 2020

15 주지홍, "사적자치의 원칙과 그 한계- 국가 주도적 위험관리가 아닌 시장 자율적 위험관리 관점에서 -" 한국재산법학회 37 (37): 103-126, 2021

16 국토교통부, "부동산거래신고법 하위법령 개정안 입법예고 보도자료"

17 김형배, "민법학강의" 신조사 2005

18 곽윤직, "민법총칙" 박영사 2020

19 김준호, "민법강의" 법문사 2020

20 "공인중개사도 임대차3법 반발.... ‘임차인에게 불이익 전가될 것’"

21 권오승, "계약자유와 그 제한" 1988

22 권영준, "계약법의 사상적 기초와 그 시사점 - 자율과 후견의 관점에서 -" 한국법학원 (124) : 169-203, 2011

23 박동진, "계약법강의" 법문사 2016

24 노현숙, "개정 주택임대차보호법의 헌법적 쟁점 검토 - 계약갱신청구권제와 전월세상한제를 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 (21) : 201-229, 2020

25 김세준, "개정 주택임대차보호법의 몇 가지 쟁점에 대한 평가 - 계약갱신요구권과 주택임대차분쟁조정제도를 중심으로 -" 법학연구원 28 (28): 149-181, 2021

26 추선희, "개정 주택임대차보호법상 갱신요구권에 관한 몇 가지 쟁점" 법학연구소 25 (25): 111-157, 2020

27 국토교통부, "개정 주택임대차보호법(2020. 7. 31.) 해설집"