연예인 전속계약의 구속력과 기본권 제한의 한계 - 헌법상 비례의 원칙과 사적 자치의 조화를 중심으로 -

This study critically examines the legal structure of exclusive contracts in the entertainment industry from a constitutional perspective and seeks normative orientations to harmoniously resolve legal disputes regarding the duration and termination of such contracts. Exclusive contracts in the entertainment sector are characterized by a total personal union, subordinating an artist’s physical and mental activities to a management system. Due to this inherent nature, these contracts cannot be viewed merely as private economic agreements; rather, they represent a unique legal domain that necessitates strict judicial scrutiny and normative control under the constitutional principles of human dignity, the right to self-determination, and the freedom of occupation. The first half of this research investigates the limits and status of the principle of private autonomy within the constitutional framework of fundamental rights. Within the structural imbalance of the entertainment industry—marked by information asymmetry and the dominant position of management agencies—this study analyzes potential unconstitutional elements that arise when the binding force of a contract fundamentally infringes upon an artist’s personal rights. Specifically, based on the constitutional principle of proportionality (the rule against excessive restriction), it critically evaluates whether excessively long contract terms and punitive liquidated damages clauses transcend contractual freedom to impose a state of personal subordination. Furthermore, by incorporating a comparative legal analysis of the "7-Year Rule" in California and personal rights protection doctrines in major European countries, this study identifies international standards for protecting individual liberty and assesses their compatibility with the Korean legal system. The second half of the study reinterprets the constitutional implications of the "breakdown of trust" doctrine, established through Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Case 2017Da258237), from the standpoint of the legitimacy of contractual termination. It argues that compelling the enforcement of a contract when the foundational trust has been destroyed risks devolving into unconstitutional physical restraint or de facto forced labor, prohibited under Article 12 of the Constitution. In other words, a breakdown of trust signifies more than a subjective emotional conflict; it indicates a state where the forced maintenance of the contract undermines the artist's personal dignity and essentially blocks opportunities for self-realization. Accordingly, considering the brief professional lifespan of artists, this study emphasizes the urgent need to establish a "Legal Doctrine of Expedient Separation." This doctrine utilizes arbitration and provisional injunctions to terminate personal subordination at an early stage while settling economic losses through subsequent monetary compensation. In conclusion, this research highlights that constitutional control over exclusive contracts does not negate the principle of private autonomy. Instead, it serves as an essential corrective mechanism that ensures the private legal order functions according to its original intent within the constitutional value system by rectifying unfair practices and structural subordination. Ultimately, the study confirms that a healthy cultural ecosystem, where creative artistic activities are guaranteed, can only be fostered when the protection of an artist's personal rights and the agency's legitimate business rights are proportionally harmonized. These legal suggestions aim to provide a rationale for correcting unfairness in exclusive contracts and contribute to the substantive realization of the "Principle of the Culture State," ensuring the global competitiveness and moral legitimacy of the Korean entertainment industry.