지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학위논문
- 저자정보
- 지도교수
- 강정규
- 발행연도
- 2019
- 저작권
- 동의대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다.
이용수14
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (2)
- 이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
- 연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
- 이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
우리나라의 젠트리피케이션은 2000년대 초반부터 주로 특정지역의 문화·예술가와 소상공인들이 자신의 공간에서 쫓겨나게 되면서 임차 상인들을 대상으로 발생하는 독특한 양상을 나타나고 있다. 외국의 대도시에서는 주민들을 중심으로 발생하는 것과 달리 국내에서는 영세 상인들을 중심으로 나타나게 되는데 이는 기존 세입자들이 임대료 상승을 견디지 못해 밀려나게 되었고 해당지역에 거주하던 세입자나 상인들은 생존이 걸린 심각한 문제로 인식하게 되었다. 젠트리피케이션 지역의 임대인과 임차인간의 분쟁이 심화되어 여러 가지 심각한 사회문제로 대두되고 있고 상가권리금 분쟁의 원인이 되고 있다.
본 연구에서는 이에 대한 문제의 해결을 위한 전제로서 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가권리금에 대한 임대인과 임차인간의 인식 차이를 규명하고 상가권리금 분쟁의 원인과 문제점을 도출하여, 상생을 위한 합리적인 정책방향을 제시하고자 한다.
먼저 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가 권리금 분쟁 현황과 사례 및 판례 분석을 살펴보았고, 상가 권리금 분쟁에 대한 실제 관련 지역 임대인과 임차인이 어떤 인식을 가지고 있는지를 실증분석 하였다. 실증분석 결과를 통해 제도 개선에 대한 시사점
을 얻을 수 있었다. 그 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다.
첫째, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 권리금 분쟁 원인은 임대료 과다인상, 일방적 계약해지, 권리금 수수방해 등 부당한 위험 직면이 원인으로 나타났다. 권리금 분쟁은 임대인과 임차인 분쟁의 비중이 높았고 임대인과 임대료 상승문제, 임대차 계약기간 만료로 인한 재계약 요구의 거절로 인하여 권리금 분쟁 현상이 일어남을 확인하였다. 상가권리금 분쟁의 원인이 가장 낮은 수치로 나타난 ‘상권주체 인식 전환, 지역공동체 사회적 공감대 형성 시급’ 결과를 볼 때 상가권리금 분쟁의 문제는 공동의 문제가 아닌 개인의 문제로 인식하고 있다는 것을 알 수 있었다. 젠트리피케이션에 대한 사회적 인식의 변화가 필요하고 임대인과 임차인 모두 상생할 수 있는 방안과 정부의 정책이 요구된다.
둘째, 젠트리케이션 지역의 특성을 보면 사업체 업종은 음식점이 가장 많았고, 다음으로 커피음료 등의 순으로 젠트리피케이션 지역의 특징이 뚜렷하게 보였다. 점포의 운영기간이 5년 미만인 경우 젠트리피케이션으로 인하여 임차인의 이주가 빈번하게 발생하고 있는 특성을 살펴볼 수 있었다. 따라서 젠트리피케이션 지역의 임차인들이 장기간 영업을 할 수 있는 토대가 마련되어야 할 것이며 실효성이 있는 정책방안을 도출하기 위해서는 젠트리피케이션 지역만의 차별화된 맞춤형 방안이 요구된다.
셋째, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 임대료 변화에서는 변화가 없는 경우가 가장 많았다. 그 이유는 운영기간이 단기가 많았던 특징이 반영되었고 임대료 변화는 임차기간이 1년 이상이 되면 나타나며. 임대료 변화폭은 10%미만이 많은 비중을 차지하는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 젠트리피케이션 2단계(임대료 상승)의 진행과정을 거쳐 3단계(임차인들의 비자발적 이주)의 과정이 시작되고 있다는 것을 예상해 볼 수 있다.
넷째, 「상가건물 임대차보호법」 개정안 내용 중 중요도를 조사한 결과, ‘계약갱신요구권 행사기간 연장(5년→10년)’이 가장 높았고, 그 다음으로 ‘권리금회수 기회보장기간 연장(3개월→6개월)’개정안이 중요하게 인식되고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가권리금 분쟁이 가장 빈번하게 발생했던 원인이 계약갱신거절로 인하여 생기는 분쟁인 것을 감안하면 이번 개정안은 젠트리피케이션을 줄이는 데 도움이 될 것으로 보인다.
본 연구에서는 이상의 연구결과를 바탕으로 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가 권리금분쟁에 대한 내용과 문제점을 살펴보아 다음과 같은 분쟁해소방안을 제시한다.
첫째, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가 권리금 문제에 있어 임차인의 상대적으로 불리한 지위를 법적으로 보장할 수 있는 적절한 보상 및 지원 제도가 필요하다. 그와 관련하여 임대차의 갱신 또는 임차권 양도 거절시 정당한 심사 외에 임대차의 부당한 갱신 또는 양도 거절시 투하자금 회수방안, 권리금 회수방안이 마련되어야 한다.
둘째, 상가권리금 분쟁과 관련한 문제들을 해결할 수 있는 상가건물임대차분쟁조정위원회를 지역적으로 의무화하는 것이 필요하다. 당사자 간 대화와 타협을 유도하는 동시에 대안을 제시하여 복잡한 소송 절차를 거치지 않고도 간편하고 신속하게 임대차 분쟁이 해결될 수 있도록 지원하면 임대차 관련 분쟁이나 소송을 대폭 감소시킬수 있을 것이다.
셋째, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가 권리금 회수를 위한 방안으로 바람직한 회수장치로는 당사자 간 합의를 통한 회수도 중요하지만, 그 방법이 불가능한 경우 지자체별로 차별화된 회수 법안이나, 권리금 보장보험제도와 상호 분쟁을 줄이기 위한
임대차계약서상 권리금 명기 필요성, 임대차계약서와 권리금계약서를 동시에 관할 세무서에 확정일자 부여 등 조속한 법률 개정이 필요하다.
넷째, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 건물주가 재건축·철거 등의 사유로 임대차 계약 연장 거절시 임차인 영업기간에 따른 권리금 보상기준 마련이 필요하다. 임대인의 사정으로 임차인이 10년의 계약갱신요구권을 행사하지 못하게 되는 경우 퇴거보상제
및 우선임차권 도입을 통해 해결해야 한다.
다섯째, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 임대인이 고액의 차임과 보증금을 요구하는 행위로 인하여 임차인은 그 동안 자신이 쌓아 왔던 유무형의 상가 가치를 보상받지 못하고 나갈 수밖에 없다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위한 장치로 권리금 방해금지의무
를 규정하고 있다. 현저한 고액의 기준이 추상적이다. 추후 법 개정을 통해 기준이 마련되어야 할 것이다.
마지막으로 젠트리피케이션에 대한 사회적인 인식의 변화가 필요할 것이며, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 차별화된 맞춤형 정책이 요구된다. 주민들이 문제를 정확히 인식하고 지역공동체 차원에서 결속해 지자체와 정부가 이를 제도적·행정적으로 뒷받침할 때 젠트리피케이션으로 인한 문제점을 최소화 할 수 있을 것이다. 젠트리피케이션에 대해 체계적이고 합리적으로 접근하여 임대인과 임차인 모두 상생할 수 있는 공정하고 정의로운 정책이 필요할 것이다.
이를 바탕으로 임대인과 임차인의 상생을 위한 합리적인 방안을 제고하고 상가권리금에 관한 분쟁의 소지를 최소화 하여 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가임대차 거래시장의 안정을 모색하는데 기여하기를 기대해 본다.
Since the early 2000s, the Gentrification of Korea shows a unique aspect that occurs mainly in the tenant merchants as the cultural artists and small business owners in a specific area are driven out of their space.
Unlike in foreign metropolitan cities, which are centered on residents, in Korea, it is centered on small merchants, which means that tenants and merchants who lived in the area were perceived as serious problems that survived as the existing tenants were unable to withstand the rise in rents.
The dispute between landlords and tenants in the Gentrification area has deepened and has become a serious social problem and is causing the dispute of commercial building premiums.
This study, as a precondition for solving the problem, aims to identify the difference between the landlord and the tenant''s perception of commercial building premiums in the Gentrification area and to suggest a reasonable policy for mutual benefit by deriving the causes and the problems of the dispute of commercial building premiums.
First of all, the current status, case studies and case analysis of the dispute of commercial building premiums in the Gentrification area were examined,and an empirical analysis was conducted on what perception the landlord and tenant had about the actual relevant area where there was a dispute of the commercial building premiums. The results of the empirical analysis gave a suggestion for improvement of the system. The results are summarized as follows.
First, the dispute of commercial building premiums in Gentrification area was caused by unfair risks such as excessive rent increase, unilateral contract termination, and obstruction of the premium processing, etc.
It has been confirmed that the disputes of premiums was a high proportion of the disputes between landlords and tenants, and the increase in rents by the landlords and the dispute of premiums has arisen due to the refusal of the renewal request by the expiration of the lease contract period.
And the results of the ''change in the perception of commercial subjects'', and the urgent need to form social consensus in the local community'', which the lowest figures of the cause of the premium dispute show that the problem of the dispute of the commercial building premiums is recognized as a problem of the individual rather than a common problem.
It is necessary to change the social awareness of Gentrification, and a Plan for both landlord and the tenant to coexist and a policy of government are required.
Second, according to the characteristics of the Gentrification area, restaurants were the most common in the business sector, followed by the coffee and beverages shops, etc, where the characteristics of the Gentrification area were clearly visible.
In case the store is operating for less than five years, characteristics shows that the tenant moves frequently due to the Gentrification.
Therefore, the foundation for tenants to operate in the Gentrification area for a long time should be set up and the differentiated customized measures are required only for the Gentrification area to derive effective policy measures.
Third, the case that there was no change in rent in Gentrfication area was the most.
The reason is that the store operation period was short-term and the change in rents occurs when the lease period is over one year, and less than 10 percent of the lent changes accounted for a large portion.
It can be expected the process of the third stage (involuntary migration of tenants) is beginning through the process of the second stage of Gentrification (the rise in rents).
Fourth, the result of a survey on the importance of the amendment of the [Commercial Building Lease Protection Act] was found that the period of extension of the contract renewal request (five years to ten years)was the highest, and next, the amendment to extend the warranty period to collect the premium (three months to six months) is important.
Considering that the dispute of the commercial building premiums in the Gentrification area is caused by the most frequent refusal to renew the contract, the amendment is likely to help reduce Gentrification.
Based on the results of this study, the contents and problems of the dispute of the commercial building premiums in Gentification area are examined and the following dispute resolution measures are suggested.
First, as for the commercial building premiums in Gentification area, a proper compensation and support system is needed to ensure that the tenant is legally at a relatively disadvantageous position. In this regard, when the lease is renewed or the lease is refused, in addition to legitimate examination, there should be a plan to recover the money and a premium when the lease is unfairly renewed or refused to transfer.
Second, it is necessary to set up a commercial building lease dispute resolution committee out of obligation in the region to solve the problems related to the dispute of commercial building premiums.
If it helps to resolve the lease disputes easily and quickly without complicated litigation by leading to dialogue and compromise between the parties and presenting alternatives, it could significantly reduce lease-related
disputes and lawsuits.
Third, as a way to recover the commercial building premiums in Gentification area, it is important to collect through mutual agreement as a desirable recovery device, however, If the method is not possible, it is necessary to have differentiated recovery bill and premium guarantee systems by local government, and also to specify the premiums on the lease agreement and to set a definite date on the lease agreement and premium agreement in the local tax office at the same time to reduce mutual disputes.
When the landlord in the Gentrification area refuses to extend the lease contract due to the reconstruction or demolition, it is necessary to establish a standard for compensation for the right amount according to the tenant''s business period. In case that the tenant fails to exercise the ten-year contract renewal request due to the landlord''s circumstances, it should be solved by the eviction compensation system and the introduction of the preferred lease.
Fifth, due to the fact that the landlord in Gentrifiction area demands a large amount of chime and deposit, the tenant is forced to go out without being compensated for the value of the malls that he/she has accumulated over the years
As a device to solve these problems, it stipulates the obligation to restrain the premiums. The standard of remarkable amount is abstract. The standards shall be set up through further amendments.
Finally, changes in social awareness of Gentrification shall be needed and differentiated customized policies are required in the Gentrification area.
When the residents correctly recognize the problem, bind it at the local community level, and the local governments and governments support it institutionally and administratively, the problems caused by gentrification would be able to minimize.
A fair and righteous insight is required to ensure that both the landlords and the tenants can coexist with approaching to the Gentrification systematically and reasonably.
Based on this, I raise a reasonable plan for the coexistence of the landlord and the tenant and look forward to contributing to the stabilization of the market for commercial rentals in the Gentrification area by minimizing the possibility of disputes over the premium of the commercial buildings.
본 연구에서는 이에 대한 문제의 해결을 위한 전제로서 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가권리금에 대한 임대인과 임차인간의 인식 차이를 규명하고 상가권리금 분쟁의 원인과 문제점을 도출하여, 상생을 위한 합리적인 정책방향을 제시하고자 한다.
먼저 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가 권리금 분쟁 현황과 사례 및 판례 분석을 살펴보았고, 상가 권리금 분쟁에 대한 실제 관련 지역 임대인과 임차인이 어떤 인식을 가지고 있는지를 실증분석 하였다. 실증분석 결과를 통해 제도 개선에 대한 시사점
을 얻을 수 있었다. 그 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다.
첫째, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 권리금 분쟁 원인은 임대료 과다인상, 일방적 계약해지, 권리금 수수방해 등 부당한 위험 직면이 원인으로 나타났다. 권리금 분쟁은 임대인과 임차인 분쟁의 비중이 높았고 임대인과 임대료 상승문제, 임대차 계약기간 만료로 인한 재계약 요구의 거절로 인하여 권리금 분쟁 현상이 일어남을 확인하였다. 상가권리금 분쟁의 원인이 가장 낮은 수치로 나타난 ‘상권주체 인식 전환, 지역공동체 사회적 공감대 형성 시급’ 결과를 볼 때 상가권리금 분쟁의 문제는 공동의 문제가 아닌 개인의 문제로 인식하고 있다는 것을 알 수 있었다. 젠트리피케이션에 대한 사회적 인식의 변화가 필요하고 임대인과 임차인 모두 상생할 수 있는 방안과 정부의 정책이 요구된다.
둘째, 젠트리케이션 지역의 특성을 보면 사업체 업종은 음식점이 가장 많았고, 다음으로 커피음료 등의 순으로 젠트리피케이션 지역의 특징이 뚜렷하게 보였다. 점포의 운영기간이 5년 미만인 경우 젠트리피케이션으로 인하여 임차인의 이주가 빈번하게 발생하고 있는 특성을 살펴볼 수 있었다. 따라서 젠트리피케이션 지역의 임차인들이 장기간 영업을 할 수 있는 토대가 마련되어야 할 것이며 실효성이 있는 정책방안을 도출하기 위해서는 젠트리피케이션 지역만의 차별화된 맞춤형 방안이 요구된다.
셋째, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 임대료 변화에서는 변화가 없는 경우가 가장 많았다. 그 이유는 운영기간이 단기가 많았던 특징이 반영되었고 임대료 변화는 임차기간이 1년 이상이 되면 나타나며. 임대료 변화폭은 10%미만이 많은 비중을 차지하는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 젠트리피케이션 2단계(임대료 상승)의 진행과정을 거쳐 3단계(임차인들의 비자발적 이주)의 과정이 시작되고 있다는 것을 예상해 볼 수 있다.
넷째, 「상가건물 임대차보호법」 개정안 내용 중 중요도를 조사한 결과, ‘계약갱신요구권 행사기간 연장(5년→10년)’이 가장 높았고, 그 다음으로 ‘권리금회수 기회보장기간 연장(3개월→6개월)’개정안이 중요하게 인식되고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가권리금 분쟁이 가장 빈번하게 발생했던 원인이 계약갱신거절로 인하여 생기는 분쟁인 것을 감안하면 이번 개정안은 젠트리피케이션을 줄이는 데 도움이 될 것으로 보인다.
본 연구에서는 이상의 연구결과를 바탕으로 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가 권리금분쟁에 대한 내용과 문제점을 살펴보아 다음과 같은 분쟁해소방안을 제시한다.
첫째, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가 권리금 문제에 있어 임차인의 상대적으로 불리한 지위를 법적으로 보장할 수 있는 적절한 보상 및 지원 제도가 필요하다. 그와 관련하여 임대차의 갱신 또는 임차권 양도 거절시 정당한 심사 외에 임대차의 부당한 갱신 또는 양도 거절시 투하자금 회수방안, 권리금 회수방안이 마련되어야 한다.
둘째, 상가권리금 분쟁과 관련한 문제들을 해결할 수 있는 상가건물임대차분쟁조정위원회를 지역적으로 의무화하는 것이 필요하다. 당사자 간 대화와 타협을 유도하는 동시에 대안을 제시하여 복잡한 소송 절차를 거치지 않고도 간편하고 신속하게 임대차 분쟁이 해결될 수 있도록 지원하면 임대차 관련 분쟁이나 소송을 대폭 감소시킬수 있을 것이다.
셋째, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가 권리금 회수를 위한 방안으로 바람직한 회수장치로는 당사자 간 합의를 통한 회수도 중요하지만, 그 방법이 불가능한 경우 지자체별로 차별화된 회수 법안이나, 권리금 보장보험제도와 상호 분쟁을 줄이기 위한
임대차계약서상 권리금 명기 필요성, 임대차계약서와 권리금계약서를 동시에 관할 세무서에 확정일자 부여 등 조속한 법률 개정이 필요하다.
넷째, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 건물주가 재건축·철거 등의 사유로 임대차 계약 연장 거절시 임차인 영업기간에 따른 권리금 보상기준 마련이 필요하다. 임대인의 사정으로 임차인이 10년의 계약갱신요구권을 행사하지 못하게 되는 경우 퇴거보상제
및 우선임차권 도입을 통해 해결해야 한다.
다섯째, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 임대인이 고액의 차임과 보증금을 요구하는 행위로 인하여 임차인은 그 동안 자신이 쌓아 왔던 유무형의 상가 가치를 보상받지 못하고 나갈 수밖에 없다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위한 장치로 권리금 방해금지의무
를 규정하고 있다. 현저한 고액의 기준이 추상적이다. 추후 법 개정을 통해 기준이 마련되어야 할 것이다.
마지막으로 젠트리피케이션에 대한 사회적인 인식의 변화가 필요할 것이며, 젠트리피케이션 지역의 차별화된 맞춤형 정책이 요구된다. 주민들이 문제를 정확히 인식하고 지역공동체 차원에서 결속해 지자체와 정부가 이를 제도적·행정적으로 뒷받침할 때 젠트리피케이션으로 인한 문제점을 최소화 할 수 있을 것이다. 젠트리피케이션에 대해 체계적이고 합리적으로 접근하여 임대인과 임차인 모두 상생할 수 있는 공정하고 정의로운 정책이 필요할 것이다.
이를 바탕으로 임대인과 임차인의 상생을 위한 합리적인 방안을 제고하고 상가권리금에 관한 분쟁의 소지를 최소화 하여 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가임대차 거래시장의 안정을 모색하는데 기여하기를 기대해 본다.
Since the early 2000s, the Gentrification of Korea shows a unique aspect that occurs mainly in the tenant merchants as the cultural artists and small business owners in a specific area are driven out of their space.
Unlike in foreign metropolitan cities, which are centered on residents, in Korea, it is centered on small merchants, which means that tenants and merchants who lived in the area were perceived as serious problems that survived as the existing tenants were unable to withstand the rise in rents.
The dispute between landlords and tenants in the Gentrification area has deepened and has become a serious social problem and is causing the dispute of commercial building premiums.
This study, as a precondition for solving the problem, aims to identify the difference between the landlord and the tenant''s perception of commercial building premiums in the Gentrification area and to suggest a reasonable policy for mutual benefit by deriving the causes and the problems of the dispute of commercial building premiums.
First of all, the current status, case studies and case analysis of the dispute of commercial building premiums in the Gentrification area were examined,and an empirical analysis was conducted on what perception the landlord and tenant had about the actual relevant area where there was a dispute of the commercial building premiums. The results of the empirical analysis gave a suggestion for improvement of the system. The results are summarized as follows.
First, the dispute of commercial building premiums in Gentrification area was caused by unfair risks such as excessive rent increase, unilateral contract termination, and obstruction of the premium processing, etc.
It has been confirmed that the disputes of premiums was a high proportion of the disputes between landlords and tenants, and the increase in rents by the landlords and the dispute of premiums has arisen due to the refusal of the renewal request by the expiration of the lease contract period.
And the results of the ''change in the perception of commercial subjects'', and the urgent need to form social consensus in the local community'', which the lowest figures of the cause of the premium dispute show that the problem of the dispute of the commercial building premiums is recognized as a problem of the individual rather than a common problem.
It is necessary to change the social awareness of Gentrification, and a Plan for both landlord and the tenant to coexist and a policy of government are required.
Second, according to the characteristics of the Gentrification area, restaurants were the most common in the business sector, followed by the coffee and beverages shops, etc, where the characteristics of the Gentrification area were clearly visible.
In case the store is operating for less than five years, characteristics shows that the tenant moves frequently due to the Gentrification.
Therefore, the foundation for tenants to operate in the Gentrification area for a long time should be set up and the differentiated customized measures are required only for the Gentrification area to derive effective policy measures.
Third, the case that there was no change in rent in Gentrfication area was the most.
The reason is that the store operation period was short-term and the change in rents occurs when the lease period is over one year, and less than 10 percent of the lent changes accounted for a large portion.
It can be expected the process of the third stage (involuntary migration of tenants) is beginning through the process of the second stage of Gentrification (the rise in rents).
Fourth, the result of a survey on the importance of the amendment of the [Commercial Building Lease Protection Act] was found that the period of extension of the contract renewal request (five years to ten years)was the highest, and next, the amendment to extend the warranty period to collect the premium (three months to six months) is important.
Considering that the dispute of the commercial building premiums in the Gentrification area is caused by the most frequent refusal to renew the contract, the amendment is likely to help reduce Gentrification.
Based on the results of this study, the contents and problems of the dispute of the commercial building premiums in Gentification area are examined and the following dispute resolution measures are suggested.
First, as for the commercial building premiums in Gentification area, a proper compensation and support system is needed to ensure that the tenant is legally at a relatively disadvantageous position. In this regard, when the lease is renewed or the lease is refused, in addition to legitimate examination, there should be a plan to recover the money and a premium when the lease is unfairly renewed or refused to transfer.
Second, it is necessary to set up a commercial building lease dispute resolution committee out of obligation in the region to solve the problems related to the dispute of commercial building premiums.
If it helps to resolve the lease disputes easily and quickly without complicated litigation by leading to dialogue and compromise between the parties and presenting alternatives, it could significantly reduce lease-related
disputes and lawsuits.
Third, as a way to recover the commercial building premiums in Gentification area, it is important to collect through mutual agreement as a desirable recovery device, however, If the method is not possible, it is necessary to have differentiated recovery bill and premium guarantee systems by local government, and also to specify the premiums on the lease agreement and to set a definite date on the lease agreement and premium agreement in the local tax office at the same time to reduce mutual disputes.
When the landlord in the Gentrification area refuses to extend the lease contract due to the reconstruction or demolition, it is necessary to establish a standard for compensation for the right amount according to the tenant''s business period. In case that the tenant fails to exercise the ten-year contract renewal request due to the landlord''s circumstances, it should be solved by the eviction compensation system and the introduction of the preferred lease.
Fifth, due to the fact that the landlord in Gentrifiction area demands a large amount of chime and deposit, the tenant is forced to go out without being compensated for the value of the malls that he/she has accumulated over the years
As a device to solve these problems, it stipulates the obligation to restrain the premiums. The standard of remarkable amount is abstract. The standards shall be set up through further amendments.
Finally, changes in social awareness of Gentrification shall be needed and differentiated customized policies are required in the Gentrification area.
When the residents correctly recognize the problem, bind it at the local community level, and the local governments and governments support it institutionally and administratively, the problems caused by gentrification would be able to minimize.
A fair and righteous insight is required to ensure that both the landlords and the tenants can coexist with approaching to the Gentrification systematically and reasonably.
Based on this, I raise a reasonable plan for the coexistence of the landlord and the tenant and look forward to contributing to the stabilization of the market for commercial rentals in the Gentrification area by minimizing the possibility of disputes over the premium of the commercial buildings.
목차
제1장 서론 ································································································· 1제1절 연구의 배경 및 목적 ···················································································· 11. 연구의 배경 ····································································································· 12. 연구의 목적 ····································································································· 3제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 ···················································································· 41. 연구의 범위 ····································································································· 42. 연구의 방법 ····································································································· 5제3절 연구의 구성 ································································································ 6제2장 젠트리피케이션 및 권리금에 관한 이론적 고찰 ··························· 9제1절 젠트리피케이션 ····························································································· 91. 젠트리피케이션의 개념 ··················································································· 92. 젠트리피케이션의 발생원인 ········································································ 103. 젠트리피케이션의 유형 ··············································································· 21제2절 상가 권리금 ································································································ 231. 상가 권리금의 개념 ······················································································ 232. 상가 권리금의 발생요인 ············································································· 253. 상가 권리금의 유형 ···················································································· 284. 상가 권리금의 성립요건 ············································································· 32제3절 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가 권리금 분쟁 ················································ 321. 젠트리피케이션 지역의 권리금 분쟁의 개념 ··············································· 322. 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가 권리금 분쟁의 유형 ······································ 373. 젠트리피케이션 지역의 권리금 분쟁 관련 정책 ········································· 43제4절 선행연구 고찰 ····························································································· 531. 젠트리피케이션에 관한 선행연구 ································································· 532. 상가 권리금에 관한 선행연구 ······································································ 593. 선행연구와의 차별성 ···················································································· 60제3장 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가 권리금 분쟁사례 및 판례분석 ····· 63제1절 상가 권리금 분쟁사례 ················································································ 631. 임대차 계약의 갱신거절 ··············································································· 642. 임차권 양도의 동의거절 ··············································································· 673. 영업양도·양수 계약상의 분쟁 ······································································ 684. 임대인의 고액 차임 요구 ············································································· 69제2절 상가 권리금 판례분석 ················································································ 721. 임대차 계약의 갱신거절 ··············································································· 732. 임차권 양도의 동의거절 ··············································································· 783. 영업양도·양수 계약상의 분쟁 ······································································ 804. 권리금 회수기회 관련 분쟁 ·········································································· 82제3절 사례 및 판례분석의 시사점 ······································································· 871. 임대차계약의 갱신거절시 정당한 심사제도 마련필요 ································ 882. 계약 갱신기간 연장으로 인한 임차권 양도거절에 대한 보호규정 필요 ··· 903.「상가건물 임대차보호법」상 권리금 제도의 문제점 ·································· 914. 개정「상가건물 임대차보호법」상의 권리금 보호의 한계 ························· 925. 상가 권리금 회수 보장제도 마련 ································································· 946. 젠트리피케이션에 대한 사회인식의 변화 ···················································· 95제4장 젠트리피케이션 지역의 상가 권리금 분쟁에 관한 실증분석 ····· 97제1절 실증분석의 개요 ························································································· 971. 설문조사의 목적 ···························································································· 972. 설문조사의 내용 ···························································································· 973. 표본설정 및 분석방법 ··················································································· 98제2절 젠트리피케이션에 따른 권리금 분쟁에 관한 실증분석 ·························· 1001. 인구특성 및 상가운영 관련 기본사항에 관한 특성 ·································· 1002. 젠트리피케이션 현상 및 정부 정책, 권리금 분쟁 특성 ·························· 1033. 권리금 분쟁 해결방안에 관한 요인분석 ···················································· 1224. 추출 요인에 대한 상관분석 및 회귀분석 ·················································· 126제3절 분석결과 요약 및 분쟁해소방안 ··························································· 1301. 분석결과 요약 ····························································································· 1302. 젠트리피케이션에 따른 상가 권리금 분쟁해소방안 ·································· 135제5장 결론 ······························································································ 139제1절 연구결과 요약 및 시사점 ········································································· 139제2절 향후 과제 ·································································································· 145참고문헌 ··············································································································· 147부 록 ··············································································································· 152Abstract ··············································································································· 172
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0