『사인을 위한 공용침해』 再考 - 경제개발을 위한 수용의 합헌성에 관한 미국연방대법원 판례를 중심으로 = Rethinking on 『the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Owner』 - Focusing on US Supreme Court"s Decisions on Whether Economic Development Taking is Constitutionality -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

  While Eminent Domain Power has been traditionally recognised as the authority of such public entities as Government, acts that allow property to be taken for the private entity tend to increase,. "The principle of public necessity" under constitution does not mean that public entities are entitled to exercise of Eminent Domain exclusively.<BR>  Many opinions over at what circumstances it is permitted to exercise of Eminent Domain for the private have been presented because there is no guarantee of the public nature of taking for the private owner, which are that Eminent Domain is allowed restrictively provided that legal and institutional arrangements to warrant public character of taking exist.<BR>  These opinions are not persuasive in full degree in that the arrangements as the foregoing didn"t ensure that economical and/or societal public benefits such as obvious increment in the level of employment or local and/or sectoral improvement of economic structure would be achieved. Differently, following argument of dissenting opinion at kelo case is very persuasive: "...Thus a public purpose was realized when the harmful use was eliminated. Because each taking directly achieved public benefit it did not matter that the property was turned over to porcate use"<BR>  If agreed that whether "principle of public necessity" is met or not depends not on what entity of Eminent Domain but on existence and realization of public necessity, taking for the private is coincidental to public necessity so long as the taking directly serve public purpose through achievement of public benefits. In light of this perspective purported "direct contribution test" would be a valid standard in the determination of whether taking for the private satisfy public necessity requirement provided by article 23 of constitution.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Abstract
  Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
  Ⅱ. 사인을 위한 공용침해의 헌법상 허용여부에 관한 학계의 견해 및 그 문제점
  Ⅲ. 경제개발을 위한 수용의 합헌성 여부
  Ⅳ. 종합적 검토: 결론에 갈음하며
  참고문헌
  

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 E.rnst-Wolfgang Bockenforde, "헌법ㆍ국가ㆍ자유-헌법이론과 국가이론에 관한 연구" 법문사 1992

2 송희성, "재산권의 존속보장과 공공필요의 요건" 94 (94):

3 정 훈, "수용요건으로서의 공익" 20 : 2003

4 "소청심사위원회"

5 정연주, "사인을 위한 공용침해" 석정허영민박사회갑기념논문집 1993

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

7 제정부, "민간사업시행자에 의한 토지수용 법제" 법제 2000

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

9 김남철, "기업도시에서의 사인을 위한 토지수용의 법적 문제" 한국토지공법학회 24 : 573-596, 2004

10 최송화, "공익론-공법적 탐구" 서울대학교출판부 2004

11 정연주, "공용침해의 헌법상 허용조건" 3 : 1995

12 정연주, "공용침해의 허용조건으로서의 공공필요-서독기본법 제14조 3항 1문의 해석을 중심으로" (창간) : 1990

13 김연태, "공용수용의 요건으로서의 ‘공공필요’" 48 : 2007

14 Ryan J. Sevcik, "trouble in fort Trumbull: Using Eminent Domain for Economic Development in Kelo v. City of New London”, 85 Neb. L. Rev. 547"

15 Stephen J. jones, "Trumping Eminent Domain Law: An Argument For Strict Scrutiny Analysis Under The Public Use Requirement Of The Fifth Amendment, 50 Syracuse L. Rev. 285"

16 "Ralph NaderㆍAlan Hirsch, Making Eminent Domain Humane, 49 Vill. L. Rev. 207"

17 "Harvard Law Review Association, “Public Use-Economic Development”, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 287, 293"

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

19 Elizabeth F. Gallagher, "Breaking New Ground: Using Eminent Domain For Economic Development, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 1837. March 2005"

20 Alice M. Noble-Allgire, "Analysis Of The Supreme Court's Controversial Decision On The Use Of Eminent Dimain For Economic Development Purposes, 20-Feb Prob. & Prop. 9"