통일 후 북한 주민의 거주·이전의 자유 제한에 대한 검토

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the constitutional justification of the system that restricts the freedom of movement and residence of North Koreans who continue to live in the northern half of the Korean Peninsula following unification. To do this, the paper first examines the freedom of movement and residence guaranteed in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the constitutions of other countries like Japan, the United States, and Germany. Next, this paper aims to broadly review the problems associated with North Korean residents moving to South Korea after unification, given that it ultimately boils down to concerns over economic integration between the two Koreas and enormous unification cost. Against this backdrop, one side argues the reasonability for introducing a permit system that restricts North Koreans from moving to and residing in the South after unification (direct method), while others opt for providing economic incentives to induce North Koreans to remain in the North (indirect method). It then examines Germany’s Emergency Accommodation Act (Notaufnahmegesetz), which restricts the freedom of movement and residence of the German people, the Act on the Residence Assignment Act (Wohnortzuweisungsgesetz), which restricts the freedom of movement and residence of German emigrants living abroad, and other acts of other countries like Japan, the United States. Based on the above discussions, this paper draws the conclusion that the direct method goes against the principle of proportionality, thereby infringing the freedom of movement and residence guaranteed in the Constitution, and that, in some cases, the indirect method may also transgress said principle.