소급적 환경책임의 위헌성- 2010헌가77 토양환경보전법 제10조의3 제1항 등 위헌제청사건을 글감으로 하여 = Unconstitutionality of Retroactive Environmental Liability: Focusing on the Strict Liability for Damages Resulting from Soil Contamination Provided by Soil Environment Consevation Act

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Soil Environment Conservation Act provides the “strict liability” for damages caused by soil contamination. The strict liability was enacted to solve a serious problem of “soil contamination” in particular. For that reason, potentially responsible parties deem the Act to have limited individual rights excessively. In this article, the author challenges its constitutionality by focusing on its over-regulatory aspect. By so doing, this paper aims to make a contribution to seek an optimal point in the legal policy-making concerning soil environment conservation.
It is legally possible for the Legislature to enact a retroactive legislation particularly for environmental protection. However, it must comply with constitutional constraints. When a legislation imposes excessive retroactive liability on a limited scope of people, when it is unreasonable for them to expect themselves to be retroactively liable, and when the degree of liability is, viewed in light of their life experiences, extremely unproportional to their past acts, such legislation as imposes excessive retrospective liability must violate the Constitution. In order to survive constitutional review, the Legislature must move away from comprehensive or one-size-fit-all type of legislation. Instead, the Legislature should enact more elaborate legislations through fine-tuning on such issues as the scope and degree of retroactive liability. Even if it is enacted under the rubric of public interest, a legislation, if not with such elaborate fine-tuning, is no more than an excuse for arbitrary exercise of power.
Ch. I sketches the facts necessary for discussion, and introduces the relevant provisions whose constitutionality is challenged. Ch. II summarizes the constitutional issues posed by the relevant provisions. They concern the restrictions imposed on the parties’ property right and reliance interest. From III to IX, the author reviews the following constitutional issues: whether the relevant provisions infringe the essential aspect of property right(III.); whether they violate the ex post facto clause(IV.), the principle of proportionality(V.), the principle of self-responsibility(VI.), and the non-delegation principle(VIII.); and whether it is a taking without just compensation(VII.). Finally, ch. IX. deals with the constitutional issues from a perspective of constitutional policy.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

토양환경보전법상의 오염토양정화책임은 토양오염이란 심각한 문제를 해결하기 위하여 입법되었던 까닭에, 책임 부담자 입장에서 보면 개인의 권리를 지나치게 제한하는 측면이 작지 않았다. 이 글은 토양환경보전법의 과잉규제적 측면에 착목하여 그 위헌성 여부를 탐색함으로써 토양환경보전의 법정책에서의 최적 균형점을 찾는 데 기여하고자 한다.
환경보호를 위해 소급입법이 가능하지만, 그럼에도 불구하고 헌법이 정한 한계는 이를 준수하여야 한다. 법률이 한정된 범위의 사람들에게 과도한 소급책임을 부여할 때, 그들이 그런 책임이 사후에 주어지리라 예상할 것을 기대하는 것이 합리적이지 못할 때, 그리고 그들의 살아온 경험에 비추어볼 때 그 책임의 정도가 심하게 반(反)비례적일 때, 그런 과도한 소급책임을 부여하는 법률은 우리 헌법을 위반하고 있는 것이다. 의회가 이런 부정적 평가에서 벗어나기 위해서는 위와 같은 위헌의 소지를 남기지 않도록 일률적이고 망라적인 법률이 아니라 소급되는 책임의 정도와 적용대상에 대한 미세조정을 통하여 법률의 내용을 정치(精緻)하게 만들어야 할 것이다. 이런 미세조정이 부대하지 않은 법률은 그것이 아무리 공익으로 치장한다고 하여도 권력의 자의적 행사를 위한 빌미가 될 뿐이다.
I.에서는 논의를 전개하기 위하여 필요한 사실관계와 위헌 여부가 다투어진 대상조항의 내용을 소개하고, II.에서는 대상조항이 야기하는 헌법적 논점, 즉, 대상조항이 이해관계인의 재산권 및 신뢰이익에 가하고 있는 제한과 관련한 헌법적 논점을 정리한다. III.에서 IX.에서는 각 헌법적 쟁점, 즉, 대상조항이 재산권의 본질적 내용을 침해하는지(III.), 소급입법금지 원칙(IV.), 비례의 원칙(V.), 자기책임원칙(VI.)에 반하는지, 정당한 보상 없는 수용(VII.)에 해당하는지, 법률유보원칙에 반하는지(VIII.) 등을 살펴보고 마지막으로 IX.에서는 헌법적 논점에 대한 헌법정책적 평가를 시도한다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 정종섭, "헌법학원론" 2009
• 2 허영, "한국헌법론" 1999
• 3 김명용, "토양환경보전법의 개선방안" 한국법제연구원 2001
• 4 김홍균, "토양환경보전법 책임체계의 새로운 방향: 브라운필드(Brownfields) 문제" 한국법학원 (110) : 254-279, 2009
• 5 박용하, "토양오염지역의 책임에 관한 우리나라, 미국, 영국, 독일, 네덜란드, 덴마크 법과 제도의 비교 분석 및 우리나라 정책개선방향" 3 (3): 31-, 2004
• 6 박세일, "법경제학" 2006
• 7 박종원, "미국의 브라운필드 문제와 그에 대한 법적 대응 : 브라운필드법을 중심으로" 한국환경법학회 29 (29): 227-258, 2007
• 8 김성균, "낙후산업지역(Brownfield) 개발 관련 입법 동향 분석 및 대안의 모색" 한국환경법학회 30 (30): 83-112, 2008
• 9 이기춘, "건설폐기물과 토지소유자의 처리책임에 관한 소고" 한국환경법학회 31 (31): 149-185, 2009
• 10 李起椿, "獨逸警察法上 狀態責任의 根據 및 制限에 관한 考察" 한국토지공법학회 18 : 18-432, 2003
• 11 長谷部恭男, "比較不能な價値の迷路, ch. 7 それでも基準は二重である！"
• 12 Alfred R. Light, "“Taking” CERCLA Seriously: The Constitution Really Does Limit Retrospective Liability" 13 : 238-, 1998
• 13 Alfred R. Light, "‘The First Thing We Do … ’: The ABA's Resolution on CERCLA Reauthorization" 9 : 371-, 1993
• 14 Jeremy Waldron, "What Is Private Property?" 5 : 313-, 1985
• 15 Herbert Wechsler, "Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law" 73 : 1-, 1959
• 16 John Hart Ely, "The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade" 82 : 920-, 1973
• 17 Henry P. Monaghan, "The Supreme Court, 1974 Term--Foreword: Constitutional Common Law" 89 : 1-, 1975
• 18 Edward McWhinney, "The Supreme Court and the Dilemma of Judicial Policy-Making" 39 : 837-, 1955
• 19 Charles B. Hochman, "The Supreme Court and the Constitutionality of Retroactive Legislation" 73 : 692-, 1960
• 20 Jeremy Waldron, "The Right to Private Property" 1988
• 21 Lon L. Fuller, "The Morality of Law" 1969
• 22 James Q. Wilson, "The Moral Sense" 1993
• 23 Michael J. Gergen, "The Failed Promise of the “Polluter Pays” Principle: An Economic Analysis of Landowner Liability for Hazardous Waste" 69 : 624-, 1994
• 24 Richard Funston, "The Double Standard of Constitutional Protection in the Era of the Welfare State" 90 : 261-, 1975
• 25 Michael Perry, "The Constitution, The Courts, and Human Rights: An Inquiry Into the Legitimacy of Constitutional Policy Making By the Judiciary (1982), In Economic Analysis of Law" 1982
• 26 Thomas W. Merrill, "The Common Powers of Federal Courts" 52 : 1-, 1985
• 27 Saul Levmore, "The Case for Retroactive Taxation" 22 : 265-, 1993
• 28 William Funk, "Supreme Court News" 23 : 1998
• 29 Chemical Manufacturers Association, "Superfund: Key Liability Issues" 1982
• 30 Lynda J. Oswald, "Strict Liability of Individuals Under CERCLA : A Normative Analysis" 20 : 579-, 1993
• 31 William N. Eskridge, Jr., "Spinning Legislative Supremacy" 78 : 319-, 1989
• 32 John Locke, "Second Treatise of Government" 1698
• 33 Guido Calabresi, "Retroactivity: Paramount Powers and Contractual Changes" 71 : 1191-, 1962
• 34 Jill E. Fisch, "Retroactivity and Legal Change" 110 : 1055-, 1997
• 35 William V. Luneberg, "Retroactivity and Administrative Rulemaking" 1991 : 106-,
• 36 Stephen R. Munzer, "Retroactive Law" 6 : 373-, 1977
• 37 Frank I. Michelman, "Property, Utility and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of “Just Compensation” Law" 80 : 1165-, 1967
• 38 James M. Buchanan, "Property as the Guarantor of Liberty" 1993
• 39 Margaret Jane Radin, "Property and Personhood" 34 : 957-, 1982
• 40 Wayne McCormack, "Property and Liberty: Institutional Competence and the Functions of Rights" 51 : 1-, 1994
• 41 Lawrence C. Becker, "Property Rights: Philosophic Foundations" 1977
• 42 John Dwyer, "Property Law and Policy" 1998
• 43 Carol Rose, "Posession as the Origin of Property" 52 : 73-, 1985
• 44 John Rawls, "Political Liberalism" 1993
• 45 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, "Philosophy of Law" 1942
• 46 Martin Shapiro, "On Law, Politics, and Judicialization" 2002
• 47 Robert L. Clinton, "Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review" 1989
• 48 Michael J. Graetz, "Legal Transition: The Case of Retroactivity in Income Tax Revision" 126 : 63-, 1977
• 49 Ronald Dworkin, "Law's Empire" 1986
• 50 Michael Sandel, "Justice:What's the Right Thing To Do?" 2009
• 51 John Rawls, "Justice as Fairness" 2001
• 52 Jesse Choper, "Judicial Review and the National Political Process" 1980
• 53 J. Richard Doldge, "Is Purely Retroactive Legislation Limited by Separation of Powers?: Rethinking United States v. Klein" 79 : 910-, 1994
• 54 David Crump, "How Do the Courts Really Discovery Unenumerated Fundamental Rights?: Cataloguing the Methods of Judicial Alchemy" 19 : 795-, 1996
• 55 Elinor Ostrom, "Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action" 1990
• 56 David A. Ramaden, "Frozen Semen As Property in Hecht v. Superior Court: One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward" 62 : 377-, 1994
• 57 Jane Harris Aiken, "Ex Post Facto in the Civil Context: Unbridled Punishment" 81 : 323-, 1993
• 58 Kenneth S. Abraham, "Environmental Liability and the Limits of Insurance" 88 : 942-, 1988
• 59 Stuart Bell, "Environmental Law" Oxford 2006
• 60 Thomas C. Grey, "Do We Have An Unwritten Constitution?" 27 : 705-, 1975
• 61 I. Edelgaard, "Danish Country Report, Ministry of Environment and Energy" 1997
• 62 John K. McNulty, "Corporations and the Intertemporal Conflict of Laws" 55 : 12-, 1967
• 63 G. William Page, "Contaminated Sites and Environmental Cleanup, International Approaches to Prevention, Remediation, and Reuse" Academic Press 1997
• 64 W. David Slawson, "Constitutional and Legislative Considerations in Retroactive Lawmaking" 48 : 216-, 1960
• 65 Erwin Chemerinsky, "Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies" 2006
• 66 Mark J. Roe, "Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics" 109 : 641-, 1996
• 67 Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freedom" 1962
• 68 Louis Kaplow, "An Economic Analysis of Legal Transitions" 99 : 509-, 1986