토양환경보전법상 정화책임자의 범위와 책임의 한계
A Study on the Scope and the Limits of Liabilities of the Individual Responsible for Purification under Soil Environment Conservation Act
김연태(고려대학교)
77호, 83~122쪽
초록
2012. 8. 23. 헌법재판소는 구 토양환경보전법 제10조의3에 따른 오염원인자 조항에 대하여 헌법불합치 결정을 하였다. 구 토양환경보전법은 오염원인자의 범위를 직접 토양오염을 유발한 자와 더불어 토양오염의 원인이 된 토양오염관리대상시설의 소유자ㆍ점유자ㆍ운영자 및 양수자까지 확장하여 이들에게 1차적인 무과실의 정화책임을 부과하고 있었다. 헌법재판소는 토양오염관리대상시설의 소유자ㆍ점유자ㆍ운영자의 정화책임은 과중한 정화비용을 그 범위의 제한 없이 전부 부담하여야 한다는 점과 다른 면책사유 또는 책임 제한수단을 인정하지 않는다는 점에서 재산권 및 평등권을 침해한다고 보았다. 또한 토양오염관리대상시설의 양수자의 정화책임은 양수시기에 상관없이 무제한적으로 정화책임을 부과한다는 점에서 신뢰보호의 원칙을 침해한다고 보아, 오염원인자 조항에 대하여 헌법불합치 결정을 내렸다. 이에 헌법재판소의 헌법불합치 결정에 따른 위헌 요소를 제거함과 아울러 정화책임체계를 정비하고 과중한 정화책임 완화를 위하여 토양환경보전법은 2014. 3. 24. 일부개정 되어 2015. 3. 25.부터 시행되었다. 종전의 오염원인자 조항 중 토양오염관리대상시설의 소유자ㆍ점유자ㆍ운영자 및 양수자에 대한 면책범위를 확대하고 정화책임한계를 설정하며, 정화조치명령의 우선순위를 도입하여 과중한 정화책임을 완화하였다. 이 글에서는 공법상 토양정화책임체계에 관한 종전 토양환경보전법상의 내용과 그 문제점 및 헌법재판소의 헌법불합치 결정에 대하여 살펴보고, 개정된 토양환경보전법상 정화책임자의 범위와 책임의 한계에 관한 규정의 평가와 개선 과제에 대하여 고찰하였다.
Abstract
On August 23, 2012, the Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that the clause regarding the ‘polluters’ according to the article 10-3 under the old Soil Environment Conservation Act was unconformable to the constitution. Before the act was revised in 2014, it had ranged the scope of polluters widely from the direct polluters to the owners, possessors (occupiers), managers (operators) and transferees of the facilities subject to the control of soil contamination and imposed primary strict liabilities for purification on them. The Constitutional Court ruled that laying such liabilities for purification of contaminated soil to the owners, possessors and managers of the facilities subject to the control of soil contamination infringes the equal rights and the property rights as they were bound to take the entire burden of the expenses of purification without any limits of liabilities and any other means to restrict the liabilities or any excuse for of exemptions was accepted. Another reason behind the ruling was that it violated the confidence protection principle due to its imposition of unlimited liabilities of purification to the soil-purchaser regardless of time of transfer. As a result of the Constitutional Court’s decision, Soil Environment Conservation Act was partially amended on March 24, 2014 and was enforced on March 25, 2015 in order to alleviate the excessive burden and reorganize the system of liabilities for purifying facilities by removing the elements that were considered unconstitutional. It also mitigated the excessive burden of liabilities for purification by means of prioritizing orders of purification, resetting the limits of liabilities for purification as well as expanding the scope of exemptions for the owners, possessors, managers and transferees of the facilities subject to the control of soil contamination. This paper covers the Constitutional Court’s ruling as well as the content and the problems of the former Soil Environment Conservation Act in relation to the system of contaminated soil purification liabilities as part of the public law. It also seeks to evaluate and find possibilities of improvement in the regulations concerning the scope as well as the limits of liabilities of the polluters under the Soil Environment Conservation Act revised in 2014.
- 발행기관:
- 법학연구원
- 분류:
- 법학