인역권(人役權)을 통한 환경보호 - 프랑스의 물적 환경채무와 미국의 보전지역권 - = Environmental Protection through Usufruct - Obligation Réelle Environmentale in Frech Law and Conservation Easement in American Law -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

There is no provision for usufruct in the Korean Civil Code. In other countries, however, usufruct is sometimes used as a tool for environmental protection. Landowners may enter into contracts to establish a usufruct with the state, local governments, or charitable associations to safeguard the natural values of their land. Through usufruct, landowners are subject to restrictions or affirmative obligations to protect the environment. This article introduces two examples of environmental usufruct; the obligation réelle environmentale in Frech law and conservation easement in American law.
The author then compares the pros and cons of horizontal contracts for environmental usufruct with vertical regulations for environment protection, arguing that environmental usufruct should be legislated in Korea for the following significant advantages: ① encouraging landowners to voluntarily fulfill their obligations, ② enabling the imposition of affirmative duties on landowners, ③ rationalizing decision-making processes within the government by setting a ‘price’ for landownership restrictions.
The proposed structure of environmental usufruct includes the following key points: 1. Only the state or local governments can hold environmental usufruct rights.
2. Landonwer’s in rem obligations under environmental usufruct should be registered in the land registry.
3. Paid acquisition of environmental usufruct should be used restrictively as an alternative to regulations involving compensation or onerous contracts stipulated by law. In this case, we can design contract parties’ detailed rights and obligations that are not listed in the current regulation, but do not go beyond the framework of the current regulation(= Big picture based on the principle of democracy, Details based on the principle of private autonomy!). In other cases, the acquisition should generally be free of charge, though tax benefits may be offered as an incentive when necessary.
4.There are no legal limitations on the duration of long-term or short-term contracts. Environmental usufruct in perpetuity is permitted but should be interpreted as having an indefinite term, allowing for termination when the environmental purpose has been fulfilled or becomes impracticable.
5. Transferability and inheritability are not recognized.
The author also advocates for the introduction of general usufruct into the Korean Civil Code. While transferability and inheritability of general usufruct would be recognized in principle, the contracting parties may agree to deny these rights, and if this is registered in the real estate registry, the property rights will be governed according to the recorded contents of the agreement.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이동진, "헌법과 사법" 2018
• 2 최준규, "프랑스민법상 생태손해의 배상" 23 : 2019
• 3 이은희, "프랑스민법상 사용권, 거주권, 지상권" 63 (63): 2013
• 4 남궁술, "프랑스 민법상 Usufruit" 63 (63): 2013
• 5 조병구, "토지수용이 야기하는 사회적 비용 –우리 토지수용법제의 구조적 문제와 개선방안의 모색을 중심으로-" 11 (11): 2014
• 6 프리초프 카프라, "최후의 전환 –지속가능한 미래를 위한 커먼즈와 생태법-" 2019
• 7 사이토 고헤이, "지속 불가능 자본주의 –기후 위기 시대의 자본론-" 2020
• 8 지구법학회, "지구법학 –자연의 권리선언과 정치 참여-" 2023
• 9 윤영미, "재산권 보장과 헌법재판소의 역할" 21 (21): 2015
• 10 김선영, "사유지 보전을 위한 보전지역권 법리" 81 : 2023
• 11 신봉근, "부동산소유권과 용익물권에 관한 새로운 논의" 29 (29): 2022
• 12 김선영 ; 오충현, "보전지역권 제도의 국내 보호지역 적용방안: 문경 돌리네습지를 대상으로" 29 (29): 2021
• 13 윤진수, "민법논고Ⅷ" 2021
• 14 지원림, "민법강의" 2023
• 15 진도왕, "미국법상 지역권에 관한 서론적 고찰" 38 (38): 2022
• 16 박홍래, "미국 재산법상 역권" 11 (11): 2003
• 17 권영준, "미국 사법의 이해" 2023
• 18 이진기, "물권법" 2020
• 19 박정훈, "국립대학법인 서울대학교 설립·운영에 관한 법률 제22조 제1항에 따른 학술림·수목원 무상양도의 법적 당위성에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 평의원회 2021
• 20 이사야 벌린, "고슴도치와 여우 -우리는 톨스토이를 무엇이라 부르는가-" 2007
• 21 Nancy A. McLaughlin, "Uniform Conservation Easement Act Study Committee Background Report" 2017
• 22 European Private Land Conservation Network, "The Use of Conservation Easements in the European Union"
• 23 Baur, "Sachenrecht" 2009
• 24 Nancy A. McLaughlin, "Rethinking the Perpetual Nature of Conservation Easements" 29 : 421-, 2005
• 25 "Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes)"
• 26 John D. Echeverria, "Regulating Versus Paying Land Owners to Protect the Environment" 26 : 1-, 2005
• 27 "Rapport du Gouvernement au Parlement sur la mise en oeuvre du mécanisme d’obligations réelles environnementales et sur les moyens d’en renforcer l’attractivité" 2021
• 28 Barton H. Thompson, Jr., "Providing Biodiversity Through Policy Diversity" 38 : 355-, 2002
• 29 "Obligation réelle environnementale; Fiches de synthèse"
• 30 "Münchener Kommentar BGB" 2023
• 31 Ernst A. Kramer, "Juristische Methodenlehre" 2019
• 32 "JurisClasseur Civil Code"
• 33 Johanna Croon-Gestefeld, "Gemeininteressen im Privatrecht, Jus Privatum 261" 2022
• 34 Philippe Malaurie, "Droit de Biens" 2017
• 35 Barton H. Thompson, Jr., "Conservation Options: Toward a Greater Private Role" 21 : 245-, 2002
• 36 Richard J. Roddewig, "Conservation Easements & Their Critics: Is Perpetuity Truly Forever…And Should It Be?" 52 : 677-, 2019
• 37 Jessica Owley, "Climate change challenges for land conservation: Rethinking conservation easements, strategies, and tools" 95 : 727-, 2018