장기간동안 상이한 정치이념에 근간하여 법규범 질서를 정립하고 있는 남북한이 장래에 통일을 할 경우에 그 통합과정에서 다양한 법적 문제가 발생할 수 있다. 특히 생산수단의 사적 소유를 근본적으로 부정하는 북한의 사법질서를 어떻게 통합할 것이며, 통합과정에서 어떠한 문제들이 고려되어져야 하는지를 명확하게 예측하여 분석하는 것은 매우 어려운 문제이다. 이와 관련하여 통일독일의 재산법 통합과정은 한국의 통일과정에서 일정한 시사점을 줄 수 있다. 그런데 독일의 경우와 다르게 북한의 경우에는 몰수당시의 권리관계를 공시할 수 있는 국가공부가 존재하지 않는다는 점에서 차이가 있으며, 이를 남한 판례에 근거하여 법리적으로 해결하는 것은 상당한 무리가 있다.

After the liberation, North and South Korea both confiscated land from all the anti national actors to dissolute the unreasonable land relations of the Japanese colonization and to pay off faults of the past. However, the confiscating process of unified Korea may differ from that of the past depending on the method of unification. If one Korea is absorbed into the other, and the past confiscation of the absorbed Korea is considered illegal, as the case of Germany, the restoration of the land to the original owner can be regarded as a possible remedy. In such a case, though, common factors of confiscation found in both Koreas that took place after the liberation should not be called illegal. On the other hand, if the unification is agreed upon, the confiscation of North Korea will be evaluated as valid, and the recovery to the original owner will not be considered. In this case, new ways to reorganize land ownership should be established for balanced development of North Korea. However, if the confiscation of North Korea is considered illegal, as was in Germany, then there would be a problem on how to view the confiscation of South Korea. This is because two Koreas both confiscated land to resolve land-to-the-tillers principle and unreasonable land ownerships such as domination of land, and the subjects of confiscation included not only the land that was being cultivated by people other than the owner but also the ones cultivated by non-farmers. Therefore, there seems to be no reason to simply consider the confiscation of North Korea to be against the law of South Korea.

• 김성욱(강남대 사회과학부, 법학박사) | Sung-wook Kim