체코의 재사유화 법제와 통일한국의 재사유화 과제

This paper aimed to specify the problems that must be solved in order to implement the task of re-privatization of North Korean socialist state property. To achieve this purpose, this paper began by reviewing and analyzing the contents of the reprivatization-related legislation in Czechoslovakia, which experienced reprivatization. The task of reprivatization involves the restoration of property expropriated without compensation for the construction of socialism. To achieve this, it is necessary to determine the scope of the original owner and whether it will be returned in its original form or compensated for its value. Issues such as the method of restoration and the scope of reprivatization must be resolved. In addition, the issue of whether to resolve the nationalization measures under the Soviet occupation prior to the establishment of the North Korean regime by including them within the scope of re-privatization must be decided. The principle of return by original object is evaluated as the most desirable method from the perspective of the rule of law, but it has the problem of minimizing problems arising from it as long as there is a document that can prove the original owner. In the case of North Korea, as there are no documents proving ownership, the minimum requirements for adoption of the return principle are not met, and it is evaluated as not appropriate from a policy perspective, such as rapid economic reconstruction in the North Korean region. If the principle of compensation is adopted, the Czech Republic's compensation standards or compensation amount calculation method have significant implications. It is worth considering the method of calculating compensation by adding a certain percentage every year based on the property value at the time of confiscation, taking into account ‘sharing of the pain of division’ and unification costs. Compensation through ‘government bonds’ can be evaluated as meaningful as long as certain conditions such as repayment period and interest are added considering the position of North Korean residents who have no experience with capitalism. Regarding the scope of reprivatization, the decision to exclude nationalization measures before the establishment of the Czech Republic's communist government also has significant implications. In other words, nationalization measures under the Soviet occupation before the establishment of the North Korean communist regime are to be resolved under the theory of the occupying power under international law, and nationalization measures after the establishment of the North Korean communist regime are to be within the scope of reprivatization, and within this scope, the pain of division is resolved and ownership order is established. Considering the purpose of reprivatization, it seems possible to limit the scope of original owners to natural persons and corporations with addresses in North and South Korea, or North Korean residents.