營業用建物 賃貸借의 權利金에 대한 硏究

Abstract

A premium cannot be interpreted uniformly since specific and certain standards concerning the cause and contents of a contract to be executed cannot be determined and such standards are mobile. Legally standardizing and regulating the limit andcontents of the premium one by one is difficult, and actually assenting to the same is difficult as well. Even in a judicial precedent, such premium cannot be actively accepted in detail for the protection of a lessee. Seeing the case of an issue related to the premium up to now, there is a case a lessee suffers unreasonable economical losses by vacating an article for lease(hereinafter referred to as "the facilities") in such conditions that the lessee failed to collect not only expenses for facilities paid to a lessor for the consideration of assignment but also expenses for investment during the business period, and that a lessee failed to exercise its rights to request renewal due to a lessor's one-sided notice for termination of a period for lease. In the meantime, if the characteristics of the premium is continuously left as it stands in the past under the good names of the principle of private autonomy and the freedom of contract. the lessee would not free itself from the position of the weak, and legal stability for such position would not be cured, in the future. Such being the case, it is necessary to prepare an institutional system to protect such lessee's own property rights in the minimum even though we do not prepare detailed regulations for varioustype of premiums, specifically. We have direct regulations for the premium in Korea, and accordingly, have to consider as to how we will adapt the premium to Article 646 [Right to Request Purchase of Appurtenances]of the Civil Act. Accordingly, I propose the following: First, the shortest duration of a lease period should be secured. Second, as the lessor receives a rent for lease and is accustomed to give and take a premium at the time of sub-lease for a lease right, it is necessary to regard such customs as practice, and protect such premium as the legal right of assignment or disposition through legalization. Third, even if a lease period was terminated or a lessee failed to exercise its right to request renewal, a legal support in which a lessee is empowered to exercise rights to make assignment or dispose of is required. If a lessor refuses a renewal contract with a lessee only for the reason that a contract term expired, and transfers the facilities to a post-lessee by requesting only return of the facilities, it constitutes intentional or implicit prevention for sufficient opportunity to collect the premium. Accordingly, it is necessary to flexibly interpret application of a crime on interference with the exercise of a right and a crimeon unlawful profit. Of course, it is natural to bear protection of a lessor's rights, too. Further, we have to actively take the lead in legalization by making compensation for evacuation of a lessee higher as in the advanced laws such as the Civil Act in France, etc., so that a lessor cannot refuse renewal or terminate a lease contract at random. To prevent a lessor's oppression and protect a lessee's rights, it is necessary to restrictpersonal property within a certain extent in the respect that a lessor shall be satisfied by a rent for the facilities which were provided for the purpose of lease business. As in Para. (2) of Article 23 of the Constitution stipulating that a property right shall be exercised in adequate to the public welfare, if a lessor's property rights were furnished to the public people, their means shall be used in adequate to the public welfare within the proportional principle, too, to be in accordance with the principles of fairness, and faith and trust. Making foundation for protecting a premium legally will be in accordance with market economy principle under free democracy and correct confused market disorder. Accordingly, more continuous research by people of all social standings such as establishment of the objective and reasonable standards to be consistent with the objects of laws through review and analysis of problems arising in the course of enforcing the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act including its judicial precedents is necessary. Further, the current Commercial Building Lease Protection Act is a bad law for the strong. Even though the law exists, there are the lessees who are not applicable to its application scope for protection. It is not clear for whom such law exists and what is an object of the law. It is mandatory that said law be abrogated or amended right away, or an alternative law be established soon.; 권리금은 처음부터 그 계약체결의 원인과 내용이 특정적이며 일정한 기준을 정할 수 없고 유동적이기 때문에 일률적으로 이를 해석할 수는 없다. 따라서 일일이 권리금을 법적으로 그 한계와 내용을 정형화하여 규제하는 것이 어려울 뿐만 아니라, 현실적으로도 수긍할 수 없기 때문에 판례에서도 임차인 보호측면에서 적극적으로 인정하지 못하고 있는 실정이다. 지금까지 권리금과 관련하여 주로 문제가 되는 사안은 임대차기간이 만료되기도 전에 임대인의 일방적인 해지 통보로 인하여 임차인이 임차권의 양도인에게 임차권의 양도 대가로 지급한 시설비용 뿐만 아니라, 영업 기간 중 투자한 비용 등을 다 회수 받지 못한 상태에서 명도만 당하여 엄청난 경제적 손실만을 입게되는 경우이다. 계약자유의 원칙이라는 미명아래 이러한 권리금 제도를 그대로 계속 방치한다면 임차인은 결코 보호받을 수 없으며, 그로 인하여 법적안정을 해하게 된다. 이러한 현실에 비추어 볼 때 구체적으로 다양한 형태의 권리금에 대한 자세한 규정은 두지 못해도 경제적 약자인 임차인을 보호하기 위한 제도적 장치를 마련할 필요가 있다고 본다. 임차인을 보호하기 위해서는 우선, 임대차기간의 최단존속기간이 보장되어야 한다. 그리고 임대인도 차임을 받고 임대하고 있으며 임차권의 전대차시 권리금을 주고 받는다는 사실이 관습처럼 되어 있으므로 이를 입법화하여 양도권 또는 처분권의 대용으로 인정하여야 한다. 또한 임대차기간이 종료하였거나 갱신청구권을 갖지 못한 경우라도 임차권의 양도권 및 처분권의 수익권을 임차인이 가질 수 있도록 법적인 뒷받침이 필요하다. 나아가 프랑스 민법과 같은 선진 법제와 같이 임차인 퇴거보상 금액을 고액화시켜 함부로 임대인이 갱신을 거절하거나 임대차 계약을 종료시키지 못하도록 입법화하여 임차인 보호에 적극적으로 앞장서야 할 것이다. 임대인의 횡포를 막고 임차인을 보호하기 위해서는 임대사업을 목적으로 제공한 임차물이기 때문에 임대인은 차임을 받은 것만으로 만족하도록 개인재산도 일정한 한계 내에서는 제한을 둘 수 있도록 하여야 할 필요가 있다. 요컨데, 임차인을 보호하기 위해서는 권리금을 보장해줄 수 있는 법적 근거를 마련하는 것이 무엇보다도 중요하다고 할 것이다. 그리고 현행 상가건물임대차보호법은 강자를 위한 악법이다. 법은 존재하고 있으나 그 적용범위에 해당되지 못하여 보호받지 못하는 임차인들이 존재하고 있다. 누구를 위한 법인지 법의 존재 목적이 무엇인지 모르겠다. 당장 폐지하거나 개정하여 보완하든지 아니면 대체 법률을 제정하여야 한다고 생각한다.