*
. II.
1.
2.
3.
4. · ·
III.
1.
2.
3.
IV.
1.
2.
3.
V.
1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
V.
* 2012 .
** ,
: 2014. 10. 27. / : 2014. 11. 25. / : 2014. 11. 28.
.
‘ ’ .
. .
.
.
, ,
1)
.
.
,
, 2014 2 “
3 ” .
,
.
1) 1 , 100
200%, 1 5 , 100 1
. 2013 2 23 .
II.
,
.
.
“ .”
( )
.
,
.
.
. 3
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
. “
,
.
.” .2)
.
,
.
.
.3) .4)
,
.
2) 2000. 9. 22. 2000 26326 .
3)
,
. 2008. 4. 10.
2007 76986 . 4)
,
, ,
. 2001. 11.
13. 2001 20394 .
. (
54 ) (
46 , 47 )
.5)
III.
. . “
.
.”
.6)
, “
”
5) , “
”, 2009 ,
, 2009, 30 .
6) 2000. 9. 22. 2000 26326 .
.
,
.
,
, .
. “
,
” .7)
,
. “
” .8)
. ,
7) 2001. 4. 10. 2000 59050 .
8) 2000. 9. 22. 2000 26326 .
. “
,
,
” .9)
“ ,
.”
.10)
, ,
.11) , ,
,
. “
,
9) 2008. 4. 10. 2007 76986,76993 .
10) 2002. 7. 26. 2002 25013 .
11) 1994. 9. 9. 94 28598 .
,
,
.”
.12)
.
.
.
,
.13)
,
.
12) 2001. 11. 13. 2001 20394,20400 .
13) , “ ”, 22 ,
, 2006, 198 .
.14)
.15)
( )
, ,
.
, ,
,
. ,
, , ,
.16)
14) 1
12
, , ,
. , , 207 .
15) , “ -
-”, 8 , , 2010,
153 .
16) , “ ”, 26 , , 2004, 154
.
( )
( ) ,
.17)
,
,
, 3
.
,
,
.18)
17) , “ ”,
28 2 , , 2010, 200 .
18) , , . 2006, 460 ; , “
”, 2009 , , 2009, 83
,
,
.
,
.
, ,
,
, .19)
, .
.
.
.
.
19) , “
”, 36 1 , , 2012, 188 .
.
, ,
.
. ,
.
,
.
.
.
, .
.
IV.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.20)
.
. 9 1
1
1 . 10
, 5 .
.
,
.
. 2013 8 13
20) , “ ”, , 2002 1 31 ;
, “ ”,
10 1 , , 2008, 15 .
2 3
21) 10
.
. 10
2 , ,
,
.
.
. 3
.
.
10 1 7
.
,
.
.
21) 2 1 .
4 , 3
, , 2 4 , 1 8
.
. 626 “
,
.” ,
.22)
.
“
”
23)
.
646
“
”
.24)
22) , , 16 .
23) 1995. 6. 30. 95 12927 .
24) 1994. 10. 14. 93 62119 .
.25)
, ,
26)
.
. 7
.
.
.
25) (1962. 12. 31 314
) 3 5 2 “
5 1 ”
1967 . 21 7
“ ,
, ( ),
,
.” 41
4 “ 21 1 7 " "
( )
(
) ” .
.
26) , , , 2011, 223 ; , , , 2003, 341 .
.
.
.
“ , , ,
,
, ,
.” .27)
2014 1
2 2 “
, ,
,
.” .
2014 2 25 3
.
. 2014 9
.
“ , ,
(know-how)
” .28)
“ , , ,
27) , , 107 .
28) 2000. 9. 22. 2000 26326 .
,
,
” .
,
.29)
2014 1
.
.30) 4 .
,
,
, .
,
. 5
29) , “ ”, 23 4 , ,
2012, 312 .
30) , , 107 .
,
.
3
, 6
10 1
, 1
, 3
.
2 .
. 2
.
3 1 32)
2 (
)
31) 2014 9 24
.
32) 3
.
. 5
. 10
, 5 . 5
.
.
2 ( 3
) .
10 1
3 ,
, ,
, ,
.
, 1
.
.
,
,
,
. , .
. .
( )
.
.
V.
.
. .
? “
, , (know-how)
” .
.
(
) .
,
.
.
.
( ) .
.33)
, , ,
, .
.
.34)
.
.35)
.
36)
.
33) , ( 16), 155 .
34)
. 35)
.
36) , , , 2008, 312 .
.
.
.
( ,
)
.
.
. ,
,
.
.
( ) .
,
.37)
37) , “ ”, ,
2008, 19 ; , “ ”, ,
1995, 124 ; , , 194 .
,
.38)
?
, .
.
.
, .
.
. .
. 38)
.
.
,
.
, .
.
± Ȼ ,
.
,
.
. 2
. 75%
.
.
. . ,
.
5 .
.
.
,
.
, ‘
’
,
. .
. .
.
.
,
.
.
,
(Goodwill) “
” .39)
.40) .
.
.
(la propriété commerciale) ,
(fonds de commerce) .41)
,
. .
,
.
39) Jeremy Rowan Robinson/C.M. Brand, Compulsory Purchase and Compensation, London : Sweet & Maxwell, 1995, p.197.
40) Keith Davies, Law of Compulsory Purchase and Compensation, London : Butterworth, 1984, pp.202-203.
, , 44 .
.
1926 ‘ ’
42) .43)
. ,
.
, .
. .
, , ,
.
5 ,
, 11
.
.
,
42) , “ ”, 207 , , 1996, 71 .
43) , , 36 .
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
. ,
, ,
,
, .
, .
.
.
.
.
, ,
.
.
10 1 7 .
.
,
. 11
.
. ,
( ,
) .
.
,
, .
. 10
.44)
, 1990 1995
.
44) 2000 ( )
,
15 3
. 14
, .
V.
.
.
45)
, .
( )
.
, .
,
.
. , ,
.
.
45) .
.
, , , 2011. 22 .
,
.
.
.
, .
. ,
, ,
. .
,
.
?
? .
, , , 2011.
, , , 2003.
, , . 2006.
, , , 2011.
, “ ”, 2009
, , 2009.
, , , 2008.
, “ ”, 2009
, , 2009.
Jeremy Rowan Robinson/C.M. Brand, Compulsory Purchase and Compensation, London : Sweet & Maxwell, 1995.
Keith Davies, Law of Compulsory Purchase and Compensation, London : Butterworth, 1984.
, “ -”,
39 , , 2010.
, “
-”, 8 ,
, 2010.
, “ ”, 26 , ,
2004.
, “
”, 36 1 , ,
2012.
, “ ”, 207 , , 1996
, “ ”,
10 1 , , 2008.
, “ ”, 22 ,
, 2006.
, “ ”,
28 2 , , 2010.
, “ ”, 40 ,
, 2012.
, “ ”,
, 2008.
, “ ”, ,
1995.
< >
.
.
.
.
.
,
. ,
.
,
.
Journal of Legislation Research / 47th Issue
:
The Study to Solve the Problem of Foregift
Lee, Choong-Hoon*46)
In Korea, the disputes about the foregift are increasing exponentially. The definition of foregift is a premium paid to a lessor or a predecessor of tenants for a lease by a tenant. Usually, tenants who have paid the foregift have thought they may get the money from next tenants. However, the tenants who have paid the foregift may not get it due to certain situations.
Although, to solve this problem, some scholars have argued tenants may get the money paid to the predecessor.
However, to solve the issue, the Korean Congress and Central Government have tried to amend the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. Some important provisions include all commercial buildings are included in the application of the Act, lessors should make contract a new tenant who is recommended by a current tenant. I think first one may be reasonable to protect the tenants. However, second one may not be enforceable because it may be unconstitutional.
It may be important to solve the problems of foregift to protect tenants, but more important thing is the ground to make a contract without the foregift.
* Professor, Incheon National University College of Law
