住宅賃貸借保護法의 問題點과 改善放安

주택임대차보호법의 문제점을 검토하고 개선 방안을 제시했다.

Housing tenants' problems developed into a social issue in early 1970's when industrialization and urbanization had resulted in increasing nuclear families and concentration of the populations in cities. Even worse, the provision specifying landlord's obligation to cooperate with tenant's registration of leasehold with the court registry was deleted from Article 621 of the Civil Code, and thus, the leasehold would be placed in a blind spot of the legal protection. Later in 1981, in order to protect petty tenants, Legislative Commission under National Security Emergency Committee promulgated 'Housing Tenants' Protection Act,' as a special code of the Civil Code.

However, the special code would sometimes malfunction and at other times, would not respond property to rapidly changing social conditions, contrary to its cause. So far, the Act has been revised and supplemented 7 times to solve its malfunctions and problems and thereby, reinstate tenants' status and rights. The main contents of Housing Tenants' Protection Act are "tenant's right of demure, warranty of lease period, control of rental and tenant's lien." Tenant's right of demure, warranty of lease period and control of rental are adopted in foreign countries, too, but tenant's lien is a unique system adopted in Korea.

Tenant's lien is unprecedented enough to demolish the conventional framework or the relationship between creditor and debtor. For this study, the researcher reviewed preceding studies and relevant literature and comparatively examined the judicial cases and relevant authorities' opinions about Housing Tenant's Protection Act to address the problems, which can be divided in large into the following 4 categories. The first problem involves tenant's right of demure. Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of Housing Tenant's Protection Act specifies that the conditions for tenant's right of demure are delivery of the house and registration of settlement with the unit administrative office.

However, as Citizens' Registration Act was revised in 2006, citizens' settlement registered should not been open to the public in principle to protect citizens' human rights and privacy. Therefore, the Act should be revised to guarantee tenants's lien on condition of delivery of the house only, excluding the other condition or registration of their settlement. The second problem involves warranty of lease period and control of rental. Of course, a system warranting the lease period is required for tenants' stable housing life.

In this vein, it is deemed required of landlords to specify a justifiable cause for refusal of recontracting, which means that landlords' refusal of recontracting should be limited. In addition, it is also necessary to arrange the standards for rental by type of house and housing environment to control the rental. Besides, it is deemed desirable to establish a dispute arbitration committee under each local autonomous administration, and thereby, empower the committee to make decisions having the same legal effects as in-court compromise so that disputes and conflicts between tenants and landlords can be smoothly and voluntarily resolved within the region.

The third problem involves social feasibility of the court order for registration of leasehold and introduction of an insurance system warranting return of the rental deposits. Under such an insurance system, the landlords would be obligated to subscribe to an insurance warranting return of the rental deposits, and thereby, tenants could claim for the rental deposits against the insurance company in case landlords do not return the deposits in a timely manner after termination of the lease contract. In such a case, the insurance company might well exercise against the landlords the right of indemnity for their subrogation as specified in the Civil Code.

If the system of the court order for registration of the leasehold should be operated in combination with the insurance system warranting return of the rental deposits, not only both systems would be used more but also the effects for tenants' protection would be maximized. The fourth problem involve the unrealistic tenant's lien. Petty tenants are protected through 3 stages. First of all, only if petty tenants should meet the conditions (registration of settlement and delivery of house) for their right of demure at the time of auction, they would be paid part of their rental deposit.

Although this system which began to be operated since 2001 has been enhanced 3 times for increase of the lien amount, not many tenants have used the system because the wide gap of amount between actual rental deposit and lien amount, which means that this system betrays the cause of Housing Tenants' Protection Act focused on tenants' rights and interests. This study discussed housing tenants' protection centering around such 4 categories of problems. 주택임대차 문제는 1970년대 초 산업화·도시화과정에서 핵가족화와 인구의 도시집중으로 사회문제화 되었다. 무엇보다도 민법 제621조에 규정된 임차권의 등기에 임대인의 협력의무를 없앰으로써 사실상 임차권은 법적보호의 사각지대에 놓이게 되었다. 이에, 영세한 임차인을 보호하기 위하여, 민법의 특별법의 기능을 가진 주택임대차보호법이 1981년 국가보위입법회의에서 제정되었다.

그러나, 입법취지와는 다르게 역기능이 발생하는 때도 있고, 급속하게 변화하는 시대적 요청에 따라 임차인의 지위강화를 위하여 새롭게 보완하여야 할 문제점들이 나타남으로써 7차례에 걸쳐 개정·보완되었다. 주택임대차보호법의 주된 내용은 “대항력부여, 임차기간 존속보장, 차임통제, 우선변제권” 등이 있다. 대항력의 부여, 임차기간의 존속보장, 차임통제에 있어서는 외국에서도 취하고 있는 제도이나, 우선변제권의 부여는 우리나라에서 독창적으로 채택하고 있는 제도로서 임대차는 기본적으로 채권관계라는 이제까지의 전통적인 틀마저 허물어 버린 파격적인 것이다. 본 연구는 소기의 성과를 내기 위하여 선행연구 논문과 관련서적으로써 문헌연구를 하였고, 주택임대차보호법의 판례조사와 여러 기관의 의견을 비교 관찰하여 문제점을 도출하였다. 문제점은 크게 네가지로 분류하고, 그내용을 간략히 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 주택임차권의 대항력이다. 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항은 그 대항력에 관하여 주택의 인도와 주민등록을 요건으로 하고 있다. 그러나, 주민등록법이 2006년 개정되면서 주민의 인권과 사생활을 보호하기 위해 비공개원칙을 강조하고 있다. 따라서, 주민등록을 제외하고 주택의 인도만으로 대항력을 취득할 수 있어야 한다. 둘째, 주택임차권의 존속보장과 차임규제에 관한 문제이다. 먼저 임차인이 주거생활을 안정적으로 하려면 존속기간을 보호해 주는 제도가 필요하다.

따라서 재계약 거절의 정당한 사유를 명시하여, 임대인의 재계약 갱신의 거절을 제한하도록 하여야 한다. 또한, 주택유형별, 주거환경별로 다양한 임대주택에 대한 임대료 기준을 마련하여 차임을 규제하여야 한다. 이와 함께 지방자치단체 분쟁조정위원회 설치와 분쟁조정위원회의 결정에 재판상의 화해와 같은 효력을 부여함으로써 임대차관련 분쟁 및 갈등을 지역내에서 자체적으로 원만히 해