경제정의 실현의 과제와 전망

Abstract

Challenges and Prospects for the Realization of Economic Justice Kl MAN OH Advisor : Ph.D.,Prof, BYEONG ROK KIM Department of LAW Graduate School of Chosun University Economic Constitution, how to change it? How to realize economic democratization and economic justice while eliminating social polarization and inequality? This is the biggest issue in Korean society today. Therefore, is basic income an alternative to social security after analyzing the economic-related provisions of the Korean Constitution, especially the economic democratization and social market economic order of Article 119 of the Constitution? And platform capitalism, do we need control? Constitutional issues of the sharing economy will be reviewed. In addition, methodologically, literature review is basically conducted, but empirical consideration of the poll method, comparative legal consideration of legislative cases in advanced countries, and practical consideration through domestic and foreign case analysis will be conducted. 1) Specifically, Article 119 is the core provision of Korea's economic constitution, and it is necessary to derive the concept and justification of "economic democratization" based on the relationship between Articles 119 and 2 that contains the expression "economic democratization." However, no matter how much economic democratization is strongly required, it has constitutional limitations that must be made within the scope of not disrupting the market economy. Therefore, the state should not take the lead in the economy or reject sound economic growth under the pretext of economic democratization. 2) In the face of the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 epidemic, discussions on basic income are becoming active again. However, the principle of a 'welfare state' must work in social security. The welfare state is based on mutual aid and social solidarity. It is a system in which citizens put taxes and insurance premiums into the community's piggy bank, and people who need them take them out according to the size they need. The entire nation saves money in piggy banks, but the n received is always a small number. The salary is generous because n is small. I don't take it right away, but I can always go and get help when I'm in danger and a need for social recognition arises. But there are no piggy banks in basic income countries. Everyone shares it as it is. It cannot be more equal than this, but the salary is inevitably low because there are many Ns. And there is no social solidarity or mutual aid. The state just plays the role of Robin Hood. The contrast of redistribution varies by income level, and there is no social security or welfare. This is why social security cannot be left to basic income now and in the future. In addition to global economic inequality, socioeconomic polarization is intensifying in Korea, and basic income is drawing attention as an alternative system that can contribute to resolving economic injustice amid concerns over employment loss caused by digital technology innovation. 3) How does the platform digital economy, which has emerged as a new business model, appear in terms of the long history of capitalism? The irony is that there is a tendency to monopolize the DNA of the platform industry based on value-based "network effects." As long as these companies are born and grown in a capitalist environment, they cannot escape the laws of capitalist competition. It will result in "more users → more interactions → more data → more value". Given that the initial dominance tends to solidify into a permanent position leading the industry, it is inevitably a foregone conclusion that these platform capital will turn into a monopoly. That said, if the state owns it, it will be like China. So what should we do. Nick Surnick's answer to this is a "public platform" or "decapitalist platform." State regulations that we can easily think of, for example, preventing monopoly bans or exploitative lean platforms, and preventing privacy protection or tax evasion are urgently needed, but this is a minimum measure and cannot solve the structural conditions that have emerged these companies. And with a cooperative platform, it is not powerful to confront strong platform monopolies. As Nick Surnick argues in Platform Capitalism, capitalist contradictions occur and the big flow and direction of resolving them should not be forgotten. A way to promote technology with everyone's ownership, control and democratic participation and distribution as a "public platform" or "decapitalist platform". It's not new, but it's not like I've ever been, but the path of widowhood still lies ahead of us. It will be necessary for the state to exercise the necessary regulatory power and invest in the development of public platform technology, making it a de-capitalist platform. 4) As the saying goes, "New liquor is in a new bag," if a new economic phenomenon that has not existed before occurs due to the development of technology, it is necessary to establish new regulations. The top-down regulation by the conventional legal system denies the new economic phenomenon itself due to the development of technology, which can hinder innovation in technological development. In the emerging innovative industry, regulations by existing legal systems are creating new industries by innovation, such as pre-regulation, and if the legal system is prohibited until it allows it to be legal, the act is prohibited by pre-regulation. Pre-regulation incurs social costs due to over-regulation in that it prohibits all acts that do not actually cause great harm. The government has not secured enough information to make regulatory decisions about the emerging economic phenomena with the development of technology. Lack of information increases the possibility of regulatory failure, so it is necessary to watch what kind of harm actually occurs in the new economic phenomenon. However, in this case, it is necessary to prepare a civil sanctions system to prevent damage from occurring and to prepare an insurance system so that effective relief can be achieved in the event of damage. The IT platform-based sharing economy has the advantage of activating P2P transactions and increasing user welfare through innovative reduction in transaction costs. However, the sharing economy phenomenon lacks a social safety net to protect users in that transactions occur without the licenses required by the existing legal system, and there is a risk that the share of resolving damage disputes arising from transactions will only be returned to the trading party. Accordingly, even in the basic sharing economy phenomenon, control measures for user protection may be needed. However, considering the characteristics of the innovative industry in preparing the regulatory system, civil sanctions to prevent damage, insurance systems, and industry self-regulation measures can be considered rather than entry regulations that prohibit innovation based on the existing legal system. It should be noted that P2P transactions are characterized by voluntary transactions between individuals, and even though the actual harm is not great, banning them fundamentally can lead to economic inefficiency due to overregulation. Keywords : polarization, economic justice, economic democratization, basic income, platform capitalism, sharing economy