개발부담금의 우선징수권과 재산권 ― 헌재 2016. 6. 30. 2013헌바191등에 대한 평석 ― (Preferential collection authority of development charges and property rights - A review of the 2013Hun-Ba191, 2014Hun-Ba473 (consolided), June 30, 2016 -)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 전남대학교 공익인권법센터
· 수록지 정보 : 인권법평론 / 28호 / 443 ~ 494페이지
· 저자명 : 김참

초록

개발부담금은 개발사업으로 발생한 비정상적 가치 상승분 중 일부를 환수하여 부동산 투기를 억제하는 수단으로 1989. 12. 30. 제정된 개발이익환수에관한법률에서 도입되었다. 그러나 개발부담금의 법적 성격에 대해서는 함께 도입된 토지초과이득세와의 관계, 2001. 12. 31. 제정된 부담금관리 기본법의 적용 등과 관련하여 논란이 있었다. 한편, 2002. 12. 26. 개정된 개발이익환수에관한법률은 개발부담금에 조세와 같은 우선징수권을 인정하여 국가 재정의 확보에 기여할 수 있게 하였다. 그러나 개발부담금의 우선징수권을 제대로 공시하지 못할 경우 담보권자나 다른 채권자가 불측의 손해를 입을 수도 있다. 헌재 2016. 6. 30. 2013헌바191등은 개발부담금의 법적 성격과 개발부담금의 우선징수권이 헌법적으로 정당화될 수 있는지에 대하여 판단한 결정이다.
대상결정의 법정의견은 개발부담금이 ‘실질적인 조세’에 해당한다고 판단하고, 개발부담금의 우선징수권 그 자체는 합헌이라는 전제하에 개발부담금의 우선징수권을 인정하는 기준시인 ‘납부고지일’이 합리적으로 규정되었다고 판단하였다. 반면에, 반대의견은 개발부담금을 ‘유도적･조정적 성격을 갖는 특별부담금’에 해당한다고 판단하고, 과잉금지원칙을 적용하여 개발부담금은 조세와 달리 채권자가 개발부담금의 존재를 예측하기 어려우므로 개발부담금의 우선징수권을 인정하는 것은 담보물권자의 재산권을 침해한다고 판단하였다.
본 논문은 대상결정의 법정의견의 문제점을 비판하고, 반대의견의 적절성과 부족한 점에 대해서 논증하였다. 특히 개발부담금은 유도적 성격을 가진 정책실현목적 특별부담금으로서, 조세와 같이 재정수요충당의 목적이 없다. 따라서 우선징수권이 담보물권제도를 포함한 사법관계 및 개인의 재산권에 미치는 영향을 고려할 때 개발부담금의 우선징수권을 인정하는 것은 과잉금지원칙을 위반한 것으로 보아야 한다.
이러한 견해가 법정의견으로 채택되지는 못하였으나, 반대의견은 담보물권제도와 같은 사법질서와 모순될 수 있는 개발부담금의 우선변제권을 재산권 보장의 관점에서 엄격하게 판단하여 국가 우선주의에 한계를 설정하고 국민의 재산권 및 사법상 경제질서를 보호하고자 하였다는 점에서 특별한 의미를 갖는다.

영어초록

Development charges were introduced in the “Restitution Of Development Gains Act” enacted on December 30, 1989 as a means of restraining real estate speculation by recovering some of the abnormal value increases caused by development projects. However, there was controversy over the legal character of the development charges regarding the relationship with the land excess-profits tax introduced together and the application of the “Framework Act on the Management of Charges” enacted on December 31, 2001. Meanwhile, the revised Restitution of Development Gains Act on December 26, 2002 recognized the preferential collection authority of the development charges, such as taxes, to contribute to securing national finances. But if its disclosure is not made properly, the security right holders or other creditors may suffer unforeseen damage. The 2013Hun-Ba191, 2014Hun-Ba473(consolided) on June 30, 2016 is a decision that judged the legal character of the development charges and whether the preferential collection authority of development charges could be constitutionally justified.
In this decision, the court opinion judged that the development charges are a “substantial tax”, and ―under the premise that the preferential collection authority of development charges itself was constitutional― that “payment notice date”, the standard time for recognizeing the preferential collection authority of development charges, was reasonably stipulated. On the other hand, the dissenting opinion judged the development charges to be a “special charge with inductive and coordinated characteristics,”and by applying the principle of Proportionality, the development charges were judged that the property right of the security right holders was infringed because it was difficult for the creditor to predict the existence of the development charges unlike the tax.
However, the court opinion did not accurately grasp the difference between taxes and special charges, so it did not provide an appropriate argument for viewing development charges as a “substantial tax.”The dissenting opinion only presented the arguments that the development charges were not a tax, but failed to actively argue that it was a special charge. In addition, regarding whether or not the right to preferential collection of development charges is recognized, the court opinion only emphasizes that development charges are “substantial taxes” and are necessary for the public interest. In addition, regarding whether the preferential collection authority of development charges is constitutional, the court opinion only emphasized that development charges are a ‘substantial tax’ and are necessary for the public interest. But it neglected the influence of preferential payment of development charges on private law relationship including the real security rights system and efforts to protect the property rights of secured creditors. On the other hand, the Dissenting Opinion viewed the development charges as a special charge for policy realization purposes, but also added the purpose of fiscal provision to the development charges without any grounds. It is a contradiction in the explanation.
However, the Dissenting Opinion has a special meaning in that it strictly reviewed the preferential collection authority of development charges which could contradict the private law system, including the real security rights system, from the viewpoint of guaranteeing property rights, so it was intended to set limits on the national priority and to protect the people’s property rights and private economic order.

참고자료

· 없음