농지법상 ‘농지’ 정의와 농지취득자격증명 제도의 위헌성

Abstract

This paper examines unconstitutional issues related to the Farmland Act for the purpose of protecting people's livelihood & resolving legal obstacles to be faced in the process of returning to farming and returning to village. Various restrictions on farmland from the public welfare perspective of preserving farmland and protecting the national environment, conform to the spirit of the Constitution and are reasonable for substantive justice. However, regulations on farmland, which is private property, are restrictions on the freedom and rights of the people, so they should be limited to the minimum necessary. It is the basic responsibility of the legislature, the executive branch, and the judiciary to find a balance between the protection and restriction of property rights. Recently, the Farmland Act has been revised to strengthen strict regulations, and concerns about not small evils are becoming a reality. Illegal diversion and dumping of agricultural land must be strictly and absolutely prohibited. However, due to the strengthening of the Farmland Act, the issuance of agricultural certificates is strictly rigid even by administrative authorities in rural areas that have nothing to do with speculative areas. In Chapter 2, this paper points out that the uncertainty of the definition of 'farmland' in the Farmland Act against the principle of clarity frequently leads to deviations and abuses of administrative discretion, which is likely to be unconstitutional. Chapter 3 focuses on the unconstitutionality of the regulations related to qualification certificates for acquisition of farmland. First, there is a fundamental infringement of property rights guaranteed by the Constitution by restricting the right to dispose of and acquire the right of ownership. Second, the freedom of residence & relocation and the freedom to choose a job are significantly violated. Third, it severely restricts the “right to live in a healthy and comfortable environment” and the “right to lead a life worthy of human beings”, and as a result, “dignity and value as a human being” and the “right to pursue happiness” are also significantly violated. Next, it is analyzed from the perspective of whether the principle of excessive prohibition is violated, the legitimacy of the purpose, the suitability of the means, the minimum of infringement, and the balance of legal interests. And it is also reviewed whether the right to equality is violated, and it is revealed that the denial of ownership transfer registration of illegally diverted farmland is unconstitutional. In addition, the possibility of unconstitutionality of the provision on limitation period for sanctions under Article 23, Paragraph 1 of General Act on Administration is also critically reviewed. Under the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a statute of limitations for the prosecution of a crime, and there is a long and short statute of limitations for various rights under the Civil Act. Citizens must file claims or lawsuits within a certain period of time to be protected in civil and criminal proceedings as well as administrative trials or litigation. It is to promote 'legal stability' to relieve the anxiety of the parties and excessive consumption of the national administrative and judicial system. In order to prevent the deviation and misuse of the discretion of administrative agencies, it is urgent to apply the limitation period for sanctions under the General Act on Administration. In Chapter 4, apart from the review of legal positivism and interpretive jurisprudence, an additional critical review of legal philosophy and general legal principles is attempted. First, there is a high possibility of unconstitutionality as the fairness in the legal treatment of unauthorized buildings and illegally-exploited farmland is significant. This is because the “Act on Special Measures for the Arrangement of Specific Buildings,” which has been enforced four times so far,