Journal of the Korean Housing ssociation Vol. 28, No. 3, 11 22, 2017 https://doi.org/10.6107/jkh.2017.28.3.011 www.khousing.or.kr pissn 2234-3571 eissn 2234-2257 2014 년도주거실태조사에나타난청년 1 인임차가구의가족지원및주거비부담에따른주거실태및주거기대 Young Single-Person Renter Households Housing Situation and Expectations in Relation to Family Support and Housing Cost urden Reflected in the 2014 Korea Housing Survey 문소희 * 이현정 ** Moon, So-Hee Lee, Hyun-Jeong bstract This study explored housing situation and expectations of young (age between 20 and 34 years) single-person Jeon-se renters and monthly renters with deposit in relation with their family support and own housing cost burden status. Major findings from the analysis of 1,695,729 households were as follows: (1) mong subjects, 27.4% received family supports to pay their rent deposit, and 39.4% had more own housing cost burdens to have housing costs minus the amount supported by their family be 30% or more of their income. (2) More than 11% were found to be more burdened despite receipt of family supports. (3) Family support status was found to be related to formation of first-time households and tenure changes, while own housing cost burden was found to be related to current housing situation and previous and next housing size changes. (4) Households received family supports showed a greater proportion of first-time households or households experienced tenure upgrades. (5) Less burdened households tended to expect housing size upgrade in their next move more positively. ased on the study findings, it was suggested to extend supply of rental housing and housing subsidy targeting young renters in conjunction with programs to encourage their savings. Keywords : Young Renter Households, Family Support, Own Housing Cost urden, Housing Situation, Housing Expectation 주요어 : 청년임차가구, 가족지원, 본인주거비부담, 주거실태, 주거기대 I. 서론 청년기는부모로부터독립하여새로운가구로형성하고결혼과출산, 자녀양육등의중요한생애과업을달성해가는중요한시기이다. 하지만, 최근의경제적불황과이에따른취업난등으로청년이부모로부터물리적, 경제적으로독립하거나, 독립후스스로의주거권을행사하는일은매우어려운상황이지속되고있다. 최근신조어중 지 옥 고, 지 옥 비 라는단어가있다. 이는각각 지하, 옥탑방, 고시원 과 지하, 옥탑방, 비주거거처 의준말로, 불안정하고열악한주거상태를꼬집어일컫는용어이며, 경제적여건이열악한청년들의초기독립주거유형이기도하다. ** 정회원 ( 주저자 ), 충북대학교주거환경학과석사과정 ** 정회원 ( 교신저자 ), 충북대학교주거환경학과부교수, Ph.D. Corresponding uthor: Hyun-Jeong Lee, Dept. of Housing & Interior Design, Chungbuk National University, Choongdae-ro 1, Seowon-gu, Cheongju, Chungbuk 28644, Korea E-mail: hlee@cbnu.ac.kr 이논문은 2016 주거실태조사학술대회에응모한논문을수정 보완한연구임. 청년가구의주거비부담이나이로인한주거의질적수준문제는 3포세대, 5포세대, 7포세대, N포세대등의신조어에서엿볼수있듯이이들의생애과업달성을지연시키거나아예포기하게만들고 (aek, 2008), 우리나라정서상이들의주거문제는부모나가족에게경제적부담으로전가되어부모세대의노후대비를저해하는등 (aek, 2008; Kang & Hong, 2013) 본인뿐만아니라가족, 특히부모세대에게도큰부담으로작용한다. 또한, 청년가구의형성과주거문제해결에부모소득이큰영향을미쳐이른바 부 ( 富 ) 의대물림, 금수저 흙수저론 등과같은사회적갈등문제로비화되기도한다. 따라서, 청년가구의주거문제를접근할때에는주거의질적수준뿐만아니라, 주거비부담, 그리고이들부모나가족의경제적부담문제를복합적으로고려해야하며, 성인이된자녀가지속적으로부모의지원에의존하지않고스스로의힘으로독립된주거생활을영위할수있도록돕는제도적방안이강구되어야한다. 본연구의목적은 2014년주거실태조사마이크로데이터를이용하여청년 1인임차가구의가족지원및주거비부담실태를파악하고이에따른현재주거수준과주거 -11-
12 문소희 이현정 수준변화, 주거기대의차이를분석하여청년가구주거지원정책개발을위한자료를제공하는데있다. 본연구에서검증하고자하는구체적인연구질문은다음과같다. (1) 첫째, 청년 1인임차가구의가족지원및주거비부담실태는어떠한가? (2) 둘째, 청년 1인임차가구의가족지원및주거비부담수준에따라현재주거비및주거수준의차이가있는가? (3) 셋째, 청년 1인임차가구의가족지원및주거비부담수준에따라직전주거대비현재주거의점유유형과주거면적변화의차이가있는가? (4) 넷째, 청년 1인임차가구의가족지원및주거비부담수준에따라현재주거대비다음주거의점유유형과주거면적에대한기대의차이가있는가? II. 이론적고찰 1. 주거비부담주거비지불가능성또는주거비부담능력 (housing affordability) 이란 한가구가주거와관련된비용을지출하고도다른필수적인소비나만족도가희생하지않는수준의주거비 (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2009), 또는 필수적인소비나만족도를희생하지않고주거비를감당할수있는가구의능력 을뜻한다. 주거비지불가능성은 1991년 UN의사회권규약위원회에서주장한적절한주거가갖추어야할필수적인일곱가지요건중하나로, 주거권과직결된중요한문제이다. 한가구, 혹은한사회나국가의주거비지불가능성을측정하는지표는여러가지가있는데, 이중잘알려진개념은가구연소득대비주택구매비용의비율인 PIR (price-to-income ratio), 가구월소득대비임차료비율인 RIR (rent-to-income ratio) 이있다. PIR이나 RIR은가구의소득대비주택차입금의비율로주거비지불가능성수준을측정하는방식이다. 주거비지불가능성을측정하는또다른방식중주택의차입금규모가아닌주거와관련된총체적인지출이가구소득중차지하는비율에따라구분한방식이있다. 이방식은가구의소득중종합주거비 ( 주택관련대출상환금이나임차료, 공공요금등주거와관련된비용 ) 가차지하는비율, 즉소득대비주거비비율 (housing cost-toincome ratio) 이 30% 를넘으면 주거비부담이있는가구 (household with housing cost burden 또는 housing costburdened household) 로정의하고, 50% 를넘으면 심각한주거비부담이있는가구 (households with severe housing cost burden 또는 severly housing cost-burdened household) 로정의하는방식이다 (Cook et al., 2006). 이러한방식을사용한연구중 Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University [JCHS] (2016) 는가구소득이없는가 구는모두주거비부담이있는가구로, 주호를무상으로임차하는가구는모두주거비부담이없는가구로구분하여미국가구의주거비부담을분석하였다. 주거비부담을측정할때, 주택의차입과관련된비용과제반주거유지관리비등을모두주거비로사용할때는 30% 와 50% 의기준선을사용하는경우가많지만, JCHS (2014) 에서인용된미국부동산협회 (National ssociation of RELTORS ) 의보고서나 Lee(2015a) 의연구와같이주택의차입과관련된금액, 즉대출금상환액이나임차료만을주거비로사용하는경우는주거비부담판정기준선으로 25% 를사용하기도하는등, 주거비부담판정의기준선은연구자나연구내용, 변수등에따라서다양하게나타난다. 한편, 소득대비주거비비율이 30% 또는 25% 를넘지않더라도, 소득이높은가구와낮은가구는주거비를지불하고남은소득의차이가크기때문에, 이를감안하여잔여소득측면에서주거비부담문제를접근하는경우도있다 (Shin, 2007; Kim & Ko, 2008). 2. 청년가구의주거및주거비부담 현재청년의연령이나결혼여부등인구사회학적특성에대한사전적, 법적정의는없으며, 연구자나연구의특성에따라서 20-29세 (Lee, 2014a; Kim, 2016), 21-30세미혼자 (The Presidential Committee for Young Generation & Presidential Committee for National Cohesion, 2016), 20-34세 (Kwon & Lee, 2013; Choi, 2014; Kwon & Lee, 2015; Lee, 2015a), 20-35세 (Chung, 2012) 등다양하게정의하였다. 우리나라청년가구의주거문제는크게주거비부담문제와주거의질적수준문제로구분할수있다. 청년가구는경제적으로취약하고주거비지불능력이매우약하다. 현재우리나라의임대시장시스템은주택계약시에목돈의보증금을필요로하는데청년가구의경우이러한보증금을혼자서감당할수있을정도의경제력이있는경우가많지않다. 또한, 매달월세와주거관련비, 공공요금등도월소득으로감당하기에는벅찬수준인경우가많다. 2012년주거실태조사마이크로데이터를이용한한연구에따르면당해민간임차청년가구중 465,407가구 (46.1%) 가가구소득의 30% 이상을주거비 ( 임차료와기타주거관련비용 1) ) 로지출하는주거비부담가구로나타났다 (Kwon & Lee, 2015). 또한여러연구결과, 주거비에대한부담감이청년의직장위치선택 (Lee, 2014b) 과경제적독립, 보편적생애과업달성 (aek, 2008) 에부정 1) 2012 년및 2014 년주거실태조사에서는월세를제외한난방비, 전기료, 상하수도료, 취사연료비, 일상적인주택수선유지비, 일반관리비등 (Ministry of Land, Transport and Marine ffairs, 2012, p.73; Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, 2014, p.274) 을 주거비 로명명하였으나, 본연구에서사용하는주거비의개념과혼선을줄이기위하여 기타주거관련비용 으로기재함. 한국주거학회논문집
2014 년도주거실태조사에나타난청년 1 인임차가구의가족지원및주거비부담에따른주거실태및주거기대 13 적인영향을미치는것으로나타나기도하였다. 또한본인의주거비지불가능성범위내의주거를선택하다보니지하, 반지하, 옥탑방, 비주택거처등과같이질적수준이열악한주거환경에처하기쉽다. 2012년주거실태조사마이크로데이터분석결과, 청년가구중수도권거주가구의지하, 반지하, 옥탑방, 최저주거기준미달주호거주등주거빈곤및주거비부담실태가특히열악하며, 저소득청년가구의경우더심각한주거문제를가진것으로나타났다 (Lee, 2015b). 또다른조사연구결과, 서울 1인청년가구의 5% 가지하나반지하거주하고있으며그비율은전체일반가구평균인 1.6% 의약 3배인것으로보고되었다 (Choi, 2014). 3. 청년가구부모지원실태 우리나라청년가구주거문제의독특한특성중한가지는이들의주거문제가부모세대에게전가되기쉽다는점이다 (Kwon, 2016). 부모의소득이청년의새로운가구형성에긍정적인영향을미친다는연구결과도있다 (Chung, 2012). 최근한일간지기사에서소개한한겨레와대학내일20대연구소의 20대 215명의인터뷰결과에따르면, 72 명 (33.5%) 이현재본인의주거가 불안하다 고인식하고있었으며, 이들중 67명 (93.1%) 이본인의부모의경제적지위가중간층이하라고답하여청년의주거불안이부모의경제적지위와높은상관관계가있다고보고하였다 (Choi, 2016). 대통령직속청년위원회와대통령소속국민대통합위원회가만 21-30세미혼청년과부모세대를조사한결과, 부모가지원한성인자녀주거비는월평균 24.1만원 ( 취업자녀 22.7만원, 미취업자녀 25.3만원 ) 수준이었다 (The Presidential Committee for Young Generation & Presidential Committee for National Cohesion, 2016). 2014년주거실태조사마이크로데이터를사용하여청년임차가구의가족지원여부결정요인을분석한선행연구결과, 청년임차가구의 28% 이상이주거비를부담하기위하여가족지원을받았으며, 연령, 근로여부, 배우자유무, 점유유형, 주택유형, 거주지역, 보증금등에의하여가족지원수혜여부가결정되고이중특히보증금이청년임차가구의가족의존에큰영향을미치는것으로결론지었다 (Park & Lee, 2015). 이와같이청년가구의부모지원수준이나부모지원여부에영향을주는특성에대한연구는있었지만아직까지청년가구의부모지원과주거비부담이청년가구의주거수준이나주거기대등에미치는영향에대한연구는이루어진바가없으므로, 본연구에서는이러한관계의분석을청년 1인임차가구를대상으로시도하였다. 1. 자료및분석대상가구선정 III. 연구방법 본연구는 2014 주거실태조사일반가구조사의마이크 로데이터를 2차자료로활용하여이를분석하였다. 2014 주거실태조사마이크로데이터는국토교통부주거누리홈페이지 (hnuri.go.kr) 에서승인후취득하였다. 해당데이터에는총 20,205가구의응답이수록되어있으며, 이에공식모집단가중치를적용하면총 17,999,283가구의응답으로간주할수있다. 2014년도주거실태조사에서주택의차입금중부모나친지로부터의무상지원 ( 이하, 가족지원 ) 금액을조사한항목이있으나, 주택의구입자금이나보증금중지원받은비용만조사하였고, 매달월세중가족지원금액에대한조사는하지않았다. 이때문에해당조사마이크로데이터에포함된가구중가족지원여부를확인할수있는가구의점유유형은자가, 전세, 보증부월세, 사글세, 연세이며, 이중사글세와연세가구는가중치미적용시 101가구로그수가미미하고해당가구가모두가족지원을받지않은것으로나타나분석에포함하는것이큰의미가없는것으로판단하여분석대상에서제외하였다. 따라서본연구에서는가구주연령이 20-34세 1인전세및보증부월세가구중주거비가족지원여부와주거비부담여부를모두확인이가능한가구를분석대상으로선정하였으며, 공공주택거주가구의주거비및주거상황은상당히이질적일것으로판단하여민간셋집에거주하는가구만을선정하였다. 최종적으로분석대상으로선정된가구는총 1,129가구이며, 이에공식모집단가중치를적용하면 1,695,729가구 ( 마이크로데이터에포함된전체일반가구중 9.4%) 에해당한다. 본연구에서이후제시하는모든통계결과는공식모집단가중치를적용한값이다. 2. 자료의분석자료분석시주거비가족지원여부는현재주택의보증금을내기위하여사용한부모나친지로부터무상으로제공받은자금 ( 이하, 가족지원금 ) 이 0원인경우지원받지않은것으로, 1원이상일경우지원받은것으로각각정의하였다. 본연구에서사용한주거비는크게아래의두가지개념으로구분된다. 첫째, 주거실태를파악하기위한변수로서의주거비는주거실태조사에서조사된임차료와기타주거관리비용을합한금액을사용하였다. 이중보증금은한국감정원이제공한월세전환율을이용하여월세로전환하고, 이를매달실제월세와기타월평균주거관련비용과합하여주거비를산정하였다. 둘째, 주거비부담의판정시에는 본인부담주거비 (own housing cost burden) 라는개념을사용하였다. 기존대부분의주거비부담관련선행연구에서주거비부담을판정함에있어서주거비원천은고려하지않았다. 하지만, 본연구에서는주거비부담여부를판단함에있어서선행연구중 Lee, Goss, and eamish(2014) 의방식과같이현재주거비중가족지원금을제외한금액을 본인부담주거비 (own housing costs) 로정의하고, 본인부담주거비가소득중차지하 제 28 권제 3 호 (2017. 6)
14 문소희 이현정 는비율을이용한 본인주거비부담 (own housing cost burden) 이라는개념을사용하였다. 본인부담주거비가소득의일정비율미만이라고할지라도주거비부담이없는상태라고보기힘들기때문에, 주거비부담의유무보다는주거비부담의크고작음으로표현하여소득대비본인부담주거비비율이 30% 미만인경우는 본인주거비부담이작은가구, 30% 이상인경우는 본인주거비부담이큰가구 로정의하였다. 가족지원여부 ( 받음, 안받음 ) 와본인주거비부담여부 ( 큼, 작음 ) 를종합하여 (1) 가족지원을받지않고도주거비부담이작은가구, (2) 가족지원을받고주거비부담이작은가구, (3) 가족지원을받지않고주거비부담이큰가구, (4) 가족지원을받았지만주거비부담이큰가구등네집단으로분석대상가구를분류하고집단별현재주거실태, 직전주거대비주거수준변화, 다음주거에대한기대를카이제곱검정과일원배치분산분석 (F 검정 ) 을이용하여비교하였다. 통계분석에는 IM SPSS 21.0을사용하였다. 1. 분석대상가구개요 IV. 분석결과 1) 가구및주거특성분석대상 1인가구의 70.8% 가남자였으며, 64.4% 가대졸이상의학력자였다. 지난 1주간유급또는무급으로근로한경우가 85.0%, 학생인경우가 9.2%, 가구부채가있는경우가 20.4% 였다. 전세와보증부월세가구의비율은각각 43.2% 와 55.8% 였으며, 거주지역은서울이 30.0% 로가장많았다 <Table 1>. 가구주의평균연령은 28.7세 (SD=3.90) 였으며지난 1년간가구의월평균소득은 264.5만원 (SD=246.62) 이었다. 2) 주거비실태분석대상가구의점유유형별주거비는 <Table 2> 와같다. 전세가구의보증금은평균 9,650.6만원, 보증부월세가구의보증금은평균 1,146.7만원, 월세는평균 36.8 만원이었다. 주거비중보증금을한국감정원에서제공한 2014년지역별평균월세전환율을이용하여월세로전환 2) 하고, 보증부월세의경우전환된보증금에실제월세를더하여전환월세를계산하였다. 전세거주자의전환월세는평균 65.1만원, 보증부월세거주자의전환월세는평균 44.4 만원이었고, 이를월평균기타주거관련비용과합하면전세거주자와보증부월세거주자는월평균 84.4만원과 58.2만원을각각주거비로지출하고있었다. 가구소득 2) 전환월세 ={( 보증금 지역별월세전환율평균 )/12}+ 매달월세 ( 전세가구의경우매달월세 0 원 ) 월세전환율은한국감정원 (www.kab.co.kr) 의 2014 년각지역월별월세전환율의연간평균값을산출하여지역별로적용함. 중주거비의비율은전세거주자는평균 32.5%, 보증부월세거주자는평균 37.2% 였다. Table 1. Overview of Subjects (N=1,695,729) Characteristic n % Gender Male 1,201,027 70.8 Female 494,702 29.2 Educational attainment High school diploma or lower 603,053 35.6 College graduate or higher 1,092,676 64.4 Work status Worked 1,441,664 85.0 Not worked 254,065 15.0 Student status Student 156,670 9.2 Other 1,539,058 90.8 Outstanding debt With debt 345,896 20.4 Without debt 1,349,833 79.6 Tenure type Jeon-se renter 748,797 43.2 Monthly renter with deposit 946,932 55.8 Location Seoul 508,005 30.0 Incheon & Gyeonggi province 464,983 27.4 Other metropolitan cities 306,454 18.1 Other 416,287 24.5 Note. Weighted values are presented. Sum of values in each characteristics may not be 1,695,729 due to rounding. Whether or not the person ever worked last one week either paid or unpaid. usan, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, Ulsan Table 2. Housing Costs and Their Ratio to Household Income by Tenure Types Housing costs Mean SD Jeon-se renters (N=748,797) Deposit (10,000 KRW) 9,650.6 6,855.60 Converted monthly rent (10,000 KRW) [a] 65.1 43.73 Other monthly housing costs (10,000 KRW) [b] 19.4 12.12 Monthly housing costs (a+b) (10,000 KRW) 84.4 47.26 Housing cost-to-income ratio (%) 32.5 28.51 Monthly renters with deposit (N=946,932) Deposit (10,000 KRW) 1,146.7 1,851.43 Monthly cash rent (10,000 KRW) 36.7 18.28 Converted monthly rent (10,000 KRW) [a] 44.4 23.92 Other monthly housing costs (10,000 KRW) [b] 13.8 12.79 Monthly housing costs (a+b) (10,000 KRW) 58.2 30.95 Housing cost-to-income ratio (%) 37.2 35.87 Converted monthly rent={(deposit Monthly rent conversion rate by region in 2014) / 12}+Monthly cash rent. Monthly rent conversion rates for each region were calculated by averaging monthly regional conversion rates in 2014 obtained from the Korea ppraisal oard (www.kab.co.kr). 한국주거학회논문집
2014 년도주거실태조사에나타난청년 1 인임차가구의가족지원및주거비부담에따른주거실태및주거기대 15 3) 가족지원및본인주거비부담실태분석대상가구중 465,310가구 (27.4%) 는보증금을지불하기위하여가족지원금을사용하였으며, 323,922가구 (19.1%) 는보증금전액을지원받은것으로나타났다. 가족지원을받은가구의평균지원금은 3,655.0만원 (SD= 5,722.92) 이었다. 현재보증금중가족지원금을제외한금액으로다시앞서설명한전환월세산정방식에따라계산하고이를월평균기타주거관련비용과합하여본인부담월평균주거비를산정하고본인부담주거비가가구소득중차지하는비율을계산하였다. 전세와보증부월세거주자의본인부담월평균주거비와가구소득중본인부담주거비비율통계는 <Table 3> 과같다. Table 3. Own Housing Costs and Ratio to Household Income by Tenure Types Housing costs Mean SD Jeon-se renters (N=748,797) Own monthly housing costs (10,000 KRW) 71.3 46.32 Own housing cost-to-income ratio (%) 26.7 28.03 Monthly renters with deposit (N=946,932) Own monthly housing costs (10,000 KRW) 56.6 29.59 Own housing cost-to-income ratio (%) 36.0 33.90 Note. Own housing costs were calculated by subtracting family support amount from monthly housing costs. Refer to table note of <Table 2> for calculation of housing costs. 가구소득중본인부담주거비가차지하는비율이 30% 이상인지여부로본인주거비부담수준을판단한결과, 본인부담주거비가소득의 30% 이상인 본인주거비부담이큰가구 는 668,685가구 (39.4%) 였다. 가족지원여부와본인주거비부담수준을교차표로살펴보면 <Table 4> 와같다. 분석대상가구중가족의지원을받지않고도본인주거비부담이작은경우가 44.5% 로가장많았고, 가족지원을받았지만본인주거비부담이큰경우가 11.4% 로가장적었다. Table 4. Family Support and Housing Cost urden Family Own housing cost burden support Less burdened More burdened TOTL Not received 755,089(44.5%) 475,330(28.0%) 1,230,419(72.6%) Received 271,955(16.0%) 193,355(11.4%) 465,310(27.4%) TOTL 1,027,044(60.6%) 668,685(39.4%) 1,695,729(100.0%) Note. In parentheses, valid percentages out of total 1,695,729 subjects are presented. Households whose own housing cost were 30% or more of their income were defined to be more burdened. Own housing costs refer to monthly housing costs minus the amount supported by family. Monthly housing costs included converted monthly rent and other monthly housing costs. Refer to table note of <Table 2> for calculation of the housing cots. 분석대상가구를가족지원및본인주거비부담수준에따라 (1) 가족지원을받지않고도본인주거비부담이작은가구 (FXX), (2) 가족지원을받고본인주거비 부담이작은가구 (FOX), (3) 가족지원을받지않고본인주거비부담이큰가구 (FXO), (4) 가족지원을받았지만본인주거비부담이큰가구 (FOO) 등네가지유형으로분류하고기호화하였다 <Table 5>. 이중가족지원을받지않고도본인주거비부담이작은가구 (FXX) 의경우, 가족의지원없이도본인소득으로주거비를감당할수있는가장이상적인상황이라고볼수있다. Table 5. Family Support and Own Housing Cost urden Groups Family support Own housing cost burden Less burdened (X) More burdened (O) Not received (FX) FXX FXO Received (FO) FOX FOO Households whose own housing cost were 30% or more of their income were defined to be more burdened. Own housing costs refer to monthly housing costs minus the amount supported by family. Monthly housing costs included converted monthly rent and other monthly housing costs. Refer to table note of <Table 2> for calculation of the housing cots. 점유유형과거주지역에따라각집단의분포를분석한결과 <Table 6>, 점유유형이나거주지역에관계없이모든경우에서가족지원을받지않고도본인주거비부담이작은가구 (FXX) 의비율이가장높았다. 전세거주자중가족지원여부에관계없이주거비부담이작은가구의비율이보증부월세거주자에비하여높았으며, 이중가족지원을받고본인주거비부담이작은가구 (FOX) 의비율이특히높게나타났다. 보증부월세거주자는가족지원을받고도본인주거비부담이큰가구 (FOO) 의비율이전세거주자에비하여특히높게나타났다. 가족지원을받은가구중전세와보증부월세가구의주거비부담수준의차이가나는것은, 2014년주거실태조사에서가족지원에대한항목은보증금에대한지원만조사하였기때문으로해석된다. 본연구에서총주거비에서가족지원금을제외한본인부담주거비가소득중차지하는비율로본인주거비부담수준을판단했는데, 보증금 Table 6. Family Support and Own Housing Cost urden Groups by Tenure Types and Locations (N=1,695,729; Unit: %) Item FXX FOX FXO FOO TOTL Tenure type Jeon-se renter 46.2 26.3 26.0 1.5 100.0 Monthly renter with deposit 43.2 7.9 29.7 19.2 100.0 TOTL 44.5 16.0 28.0 11.4 100.0 Location Seoul 33.7 21.1 32.4 12.8 100.0 Incheon & Gyeonggi Province 51.6 11.9 32.6 3.8 100.0 Other metropolitan cities C 42.4 12.6 29.3 15.7 100.0 Other 51.4 17.0 16.7 15.0 100.0 TOTL 44.5 16.0 28.0 11.4 100.0 Note. Values presented are valid percentages out of each tenure type or location. Refer to <Table 5> for description of each group. χ 2 =204,833.3, p=.000 χ 2 =99,283.6, p=.000 C usan, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, Ulsan 제 28 권제 3 호 (2017. 6)
16 문소희 이현정 만있는전세가구의경우가족지원금을제외하면본인부담주거비가상당히감소할수있는반면에, 보증부월세가구는보증금에대한가족지원금만반영되고매달월세에대한가족지원금은전혀반영되지않아가족지원금을반영하여도본인부담주거비가현저하게감소되기는어려웠을것이다. 지역별로는인천 경기지역에서는가족지원을받지않은가구의비율이상대적으로높고비수도권지역에서는가족지원을받았지만본인주거비부담이큰가구 (FOO) 의비율이상대적으로높은경향을보였다. 가족지원및본인주거비부담집단별성별, 교육수준, Table 7. Household Characteristics by Family Support and Own Housing Cost urden Groups (N=1,695,729; Unit: %) Item FXX FOX FXO FOO TOTL Gender Male 76.8 70.7 64.4 63.6 70.8 Female 23.2 29.3 35.6 36.4 29.2 Educational attainment High school diploma or lower 35.2 23.4 28.3 71.8 35.6 College graduate or higher 64.8 76.6 71.7 28.2 64.4 Work status C Worked 97.0 89.3 82.1 39.4 85.0 Not worked 3.0 10.7 17.9 60.6 15.0 Student status D Student 0.4 4.5 9.1 50.4 9.2 Other 99.6 95.5 90.9 49.6 90.8 Outstanding debt E With debt 23.3 17.0 20.9 12.7 20.4 Without debt 76.7 83.0 79.1 87.3 79.6 Tenure type F Jeon-se renter 45.8 72.3 40.9 6.0 44.2 Monthly renter with deposit 54.2 27.7 59.1 94.0 55.8 Location G Seoul 22.7 39.5 34.6 33.6 30.0 Incheon & Gyeonggi Province 31.8 20.4 31.9 9.2 27.4 Other metropolitan cities H 17.2 14.2 18.9 24.9 18.1 Other 28.3 26.0 14.6 32.3 24.5 Note. Values presented are valid percentages out of each family support and own housing cost burden group. Refer to <Table 5> for description of each group. χ 2 =27,478.2, p=.000 χ 2 =139,494.4, p=.000 C Whether or not the person ever worked last one week either paid or unpaid. χ 2 =408,181.1, p=.000 D χ 2 =468,399.7, p=.000 E χ 2 =13,000.4, p=.000 F χ 2 =204,833.3, p=.000 G χ 2 =99,283.6, p=.000 H usan, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, Ulsan Table 8. ge and Income by Family Support and Own Housing Cost urden Groups (N=1,695,729) Item FXX FOX FXO FOO TOTL ge (years) 29.8 d 28.2 b 28.8 c 24.5 a 28.7 Monthly income (10,000 KRW) 339.5 d 270.5 c 207.0 b 104.3 a 264.5 Note. Group means are presented. lphabet subscripts next to means refer to homogeneous subsets by Duncan s Posthoc test at p<.05 (a<b<c<d). Refer to <Table 5> for description of each group. F=117,744.8, p=.000. Calculated by subtracting birth year from the survey year (2014). F=66,030.6, p=.000 근로여부, 가구부채유무, 연령, 소득을각각비교한결과 <Table 7, 8>, 가족지원여부관계없이주거비부담이큰가구는여성의비율이상대적으로높고소득수준이낮았으며, 가족지원을받고도주거비부담이큰가구 (FOO) 는평균연령과소득수준이현저하게낮고, 고졸이하학력자의비율과지난 1주간근로한자의비율, 부채가있는자의비율이상당히낮고, 학생비율과보증부월세가구의비율이상당히높은특징을보여, 대학생과취업준비생이주를이룬집단으로해석된다. 가족지원을받지않고도본인주거비부담이작은가구 (FXX) 는다른가구에비하여평균연령과소득수준이높고, 지난 1주간근로가구비율과부채가있는가구비율이높았다. 전반적으로가족지원을받은가구는가구부채가있는가구의비율이상대적으로낮은특성을보였다. 2. 가족지원및본인주거비부담수준에따른주거실태 가족지원및주거비부담여부에따른현재주거의실태를비교하기위하여월평균주거비, 주거면적 ( 전용면적기준 ), 지하, 반지하, 옥탑방거주여부, 비주택거처 3) 거주여부, 최저주거기준미달주호거주여부를집단별로비교하였다. 현행최저주거기준은 2011년에국토교통부에서개정고시한것으로, 당시 1인가구의최소주거면적기준이이전 12 m 2 에서 14 m 2 로상향되었다. 집단별주거비를점유유형에따라비교 분석한결과, <Table 9>, 전세와보증부월세모두가족지원을받지 Table 9. Housing Costs by Tenure Types by Family Support and Own Housing Cost urden Groups (Unit: 10,000 KRW) Tenure type FXX FOX FXO FOO TOTL Jeon-se renter 66.90 a 83.37 b 113.67 c 135.05 d 84.43 Monthly renter with deposit 52.64 a 53.13 b 70.90 c 53.01 b 58.16 Note. Group means are presented. lphabet subscripts next to means refer to homogeneous subsets by Duncan s Posthoc test at p<.05 (a<b< c<d). Refer to <Table 5> for description of each group and table note of <Table 2> for calculation of the housing costs. N=748,797, F=55,092.6, p=.000 N=946,932, F=21,095.5, p=.000 3) 비거주용건물 ( 상가, 공장, 여관등 ) 내주호, 쪽방, 판자집, 비닐하우스, 컨테이너, 움막등 한국주거학회논문집
2014 년도주거실태조사에나타난청년 1 인임차가구의가족지원및주거비부담에따른주거실태및주거기대 17 않고본인주거비부담이작은가구 (FXX) 의주거비가가장낮았다. 전세가구중에서는가족지원을받고도본인주거비부담이큰가구 (FOO), 보증부월세가구중에서는가족지원을받지않고본인주거비부담이큰가구 (FXO) 의주거비가가장높은경향을보였다. 집단별주거면적을비교한결과, 주거비와주거면적모두가족지원을받지않고본인주거비부담이큰가구 (FXO) 가가장크고, 가족지원을받고본인주거비부담이작은가구 (FOX), 가족지원도받지않고본인주거비부담도작은가구 (FXX) 순으로나타났다 <Table 10>. Table 10. Housing Size by Family Support and Own Housing Cost urden Groups (N=1,695,729; Unit: m 2 ) Item FXX FOX FXO FOO TOTL Housing size 43.78 b 48.47 c 52.11 d 30.31 a 45.33 Note. F=42,531.1, p=.000. Group means are presented. lphabet subscripts next to means refer to homogeneous subsets by Duncan s Posthoc test at p<.05 (a<b<c<d). Refer to <Table 5> for description of each group. 지하, 반지하, 옥탑방거주가구비율이나비주택거처거주가구비율, 최저주거기준미달가구비율의집단간비교결과는 <Table 11> 과같다. 전반적으로, 가족지원을받지않고본인주거비부담이작은가구 (FXX) 는지하, 반지하, 옥탑방거주가구비율이가장높고, 비주택거처나최저주거기준미달주호비율도높은특성을보여, 가족지원을받지않은상태에서본인이자력으로지 Table 11. Current Housing Conditions by Family Support and Own Housing Cost urden Groups (N=1,695,729; Unit: %) Item FXX FOX FXO FOO TOTL Unit level asement/semi-basement/ rooftop 6.5 4.4 2.8 4.9 4.9 Ground level 93.5 95.6 97.2 95.1 95.1 Housing type Non-house living quarter 0.9 1.3.0.0.6 House 99.1 98.7 100.0 100.0 99.4 Minimum housing standards C Met 94.0 98.2 96.4 87.1 94.6 Unmet 6.0 1.8 3.6 12.9 5.4 Note. Values presented are valid percentages out of each family support and own housing cost burden group. Refer to <Table 5> for description of each group. χ 2 =8,653.1, p=.000 χ 2 =7,249.3, p=.000 C χ 2 =99,283.6, p=.000. ased on whether or not a housing unit met bedroom and size requirements by household size; and facility requirements (private western-style kitchen, private bathing facility, private flush toilet) standards of the national minimum housing standard (Ministry of Land, Transport and Marine ffairs, 2011). 불가능한수준에맞추어질적수준이낮은주호를선택했을가능성을고려할수있다. 비주택거처거주가구는가족지원여부와관계없이주거비부담이작은가구중에서만나타났으며, 최저주거기준미달가구비율은가족지원을받고도본인주거비부담이큰가구 (FOO) 중에서가장높게나타나, 가족지원이청년 1인임차가구의현재주거수준에반드시긍정적인영향을주지는않은것으로해석할수있다. 3. 가족지원및본인주거비부담수준에따른직전주거대비주거수준변화가족지원및본인주거비부담여부에따라직전주거대비주거수준이어떻게변화하였는지를분석하기위하여집단간점유유형과주거면적의변화를비교하였다. 본연구의분석대상은현재전세또는보증부월세거주가구이지만, 직전점유유형이자가또는무보증월세였던가구가다수포함되어있었다. 따라서, 점유유형은자가, 전세, 보증부월세, 무보증월세및기타순으로순위를정하였다. 이점유유형순위에따라서직전주거대비현재주거의점유유형의순위변화를하향, 동일, 상향으로구분하였으며, 이전에이사경험이없는 최초가구 를측정수준으로포함하였다. 직전주거를무상으로임차하였다고응답한 27,204가구의경우, 직전주거대비점유유형의변화를하향이나상향등으로판단하기어려웠기때문에직전주거대비점유유형변화분석에서는제외하였다. 직전주거대비주거면적의변화는전용면적을기준으로감소, 동일, 상향세수준으로판단하였으며, 주거면적변화분석시에는 906,411 최초가구를제외하였다. 분석결과, <Table 12> 에나타난바와같이가족지원을받은가구는그렇지않은가구에비하여최초가구의비율이높았으며, 가족지원을받고본인주거비부담이작은경우 (FOX) 점유유형이상향이동된가구의비율이상대적으로높게나타났다. 반면, 가족지원을받지않고본인주거비부담이큰경우직전보다점유유형이하향이동된가구의비율이다른집단에비하여높게나타나가족지원이가구의점유유형상향이동과청년가구의신규형성, 즉부모로부터분가에긍정적인영향을미쳤다고해석할수있다. 이러한결과는부모의소득수준이높을경우자녀에대한지원이원활하여청년신규가구형성에긍정적으로영향을미친다는기존의연구결과 (Chung, 2012) 와도일관된것으로, 보편적인주택시장에서청년이새로운가구로분화하거나, 기존청년임차가구가점유유형의상향이동을통하여자가에이르기까지의순행이가족의지원여부에따라차이가날수있음을시사한다. 이는부모의부가자식의성공적인학업이나사회진출을좌우할수있는이른바부의대물림현상으로인한사회적갈등으로비화될수있다는문제점을내포하고있다. 제 28 권제 3 호 (2017. 6)
18 문소희 이현정 가족지원여부에관계없이본인주거비부담이작은가구의경우, 주거비부담이큰가구에비하여주거면적감소를경험한가구의비율이더높은경향을보였는데, 이집단에서만비주택거처거주가구가나타났던이전결과와비교하였을때, 이전주거에서의주거비부담을완화시키기위해서주거규모를축소한가구가많았을가능성을고려할수있다. 실제로추가적분석에서현재주택으로이사온이유를이두집단과나머지집단으로나누어빈도를분석한결과, 이두집단중주거비부담을이유로이사한가구비율이 11.8% 로나머지집단 (6.2%) 에비하여높게나타났다. Table 12. Housing Changes Since Previous Housing by Family Support and Own Housing Cost urden Groups (Unit: %) Change FXX FOX FXO FOO TOTL Tenure type (N=1,653,032) Downward 4.6 2.9 6.0 0.8 4.3 Same 39.7 27.4 36.5 32.1 35.9 Upward 4.7 7.4 5.6 0.8 5.0 First-time householder 51.0 62.2 51.8 66.3 54.8 Housing size (N=789,318) C Downscale 31.5 37.1 23.2 19.5 28.8 Same 25.9 20.2 24.5 48.2 26.6 Upscale 42.6 42.7 52.3 32.2 44.6 Note. Values presented are valid percentages out of each family support and own housing cost burden group. Refer to <Table 5> for description of each group. χ 2 =39,384.9, p=.000. Statistics excluded households who were previously no-rent renters. Householder who did not have any previous residential move experience C χ 2 =27,410.1, p=.000. Statistics excluded first-time householders. 거로이사시추가적인가족지원을기대하기어렵기때문에현재의본인주거비부담이없는상태를단순히유지하고자하는의도로나타났을가능성을고려할수있다. 현재주거대비다음주거주거면적변화기대는가족지원여부에따른차이보다는본인주거비부담수준에따른차이가나타났는데, 본인주거비부담이큰경우는주거면적의감소를, 부담이작은경우는주거면적의증가를더많이기대하고있는것으로나타났다. 이는현재의본인주거비부담이큰가구의경우주거비부담을완화시키기위해서주거규모를축소하려는의도로볼수있다. Table 13. Next Housing Expectations in Comparison with Current Housing Situation by Family Support and Own Housing Cost urden Groups (Unit: %) Item FXX FOX FXO FOO TOTL Home purchase (N=517,286) Expect 22.1 21.4 25.6 17.8 22.5 Not expect 77.9 78.6 74.4 82.2 77.5 Tenure type change (N=490,082) Downward 1.7.0.0.0.8 Same 54.0 70.6 54.0 56.1 57.1 Upward 44.3 29.4 46.0 43.9 42.0 Housing size change (N=525,429) C Downscale 3.0.0 6.8 4.9 3.5 Same 2.5 7.6 5.6 7.9 4.6 Upscale 94.4 92.4 87.6 87.2 91.9 Note. Statistics of households who planned to move. Values presented are valid percentages out of each family support and own housing cost burden group. Refer to <Table 5> for description of each group. χ 2 =1.339.3, p=.000 χ 2 =11,781.3, p=.000. Statistics excluded households who planned to be no-rent renters in next housing. C χ 2 =13,808.6, p=.000. 4. 가족지원및본인주거비부담수준에따른다음주거기대다음주거에대한기대는분석대상가구중향후이사계획이있는 527,268가구 ( 분석대상가구의 31.1%) 를대상으로주택구매기대여부와현재와비교하여계획또는예상하고있는다음주거의점유유형과주거면적의변화유형을집단간비교하였다. 분석결과 <Table 13>, 가족지원을받고도본인주거비부담이큰가구 (FOO) 가주택구매에대한기대가가장낮았다. 가족지원을받고본인주거비부담이작은가구 (FOX) 는점유유형상향이동에대한기대가나머지집단에비하여현저하게낮고, 점유유형유지에대한기대는현저하게높은특성을보였는데, 이는해당집단이네집단중직전주거에서현재주거로이사시에점유유형상향을경험한가구의비율이가장높았던것과는상반된결과이다. 이러한경향은이미현재주거로이사시주거비를가족으로부터이미지원받아서다음주 5. 결과의요약이상분석한청년 1인임차가구의가족지원및본인주거비부담수준에따른가구특성, 주거실태, 직전주거대비현재주거수준변화, 현재주거대비다음주거기대의차이를표로요약하면 <Table 14> 와같다. 이중가구특성과현재주거실태에서가장극명하게대비가되는것은가족지원을받지않고도본인주거비부담이작은가구집단 (FXX) 과가족지원을받았음에도불구하고본인주거비부담이큰가구집단 (FOO) 이다. 가족지원을받지않고도주거비부담이작은가구집단 (FXX) 은전체분석대상가구중그비중이 44.5% 로가장높고이들의가구및주거특성에비추어볼때, 비 ( 非 ) 서울지역에서사회에진출한후시간이경과하여경제적으로독립을한청년이주를이룬것으로해석된다. 하지만, 이들은다른집단에속한가구에비하여주거비수준이가장낮고, 주거면적이작으며, 지하, 반지하, 옥 한국주거학회논문집
2014 년도주거실태조사에나타난청년 1 인임차가구의가족지원및주거비부담에따른주거실태및주거기대 19 Table 14. Summary of Group Comparisons Item FXX FOX FXO FOO % 44.5% 16.0% 28.0% 11.4% Household characteristics Gender Greatest % of males (76.8%) 2nd greatest % of males (70.7%) 2nd greatest % of females (35.6%) Greatest % of females (36.4%) verage age (yrs) Oldest (29.8 yrs) 3rd oldest (28.2 yrs) 2nd oldest (28.8 yrs) Youngest (24.5 yrs) % with college degree+ 3rd greatest (64.8%) Greatest (76.6%) 2nd greatest (71.7%) Extremely least (28.2%) % ever worked last one week Greatest (97.0%) 2nd greatest (89.3%) 3rd greatest (82.1%) Extremely least (39.4%) % of students Extremely least (0.4%) 4.5% 9.1% Extremely greatest (50.4%) verage income (10,000 Greatest (339.5) 2nd greatest (270.5) 3rd greatest (207.0) Minimal (104.3) KRW/month) % with outstanding debt Greatest (23.3%) 2nd least (17.0%) 2nd greatest (20.9%) Least (12.7%) Tenure type Location Least % living in Seoul (22.7%) 2nd least living in Seoul Metropolitan rea (56.5%) Greatest % of Jeon-se renters (72.3%) Greatest % living in Seoul (39.5%) 2nd greatest % living in Seoul Metropolitan rea (59.9%) Greatest % living in Seoul Metropolitan rea (66.5%) Greatest % of monthly renters with deposit (94.0%) Least % living in Seoul Metropolitan rea (54.5%) Housing characteristics verage housing costs (10,000 KRW/month) Jeon-se renters Lowest (66.90) 2nd lowest (83.37) 2nd highest (113.67) Highest (135.05) Monthly renters with Lowest (52.64) 2nd lowest (53.13) Highest (70.90) 2nd lowest (53.01) deposit verage housing size 2nd smallest (43.78) 2nd largest (48.47) Largest (52.11) Smallest (30.31) Housing quality % in basement, semibasement Greatest (6.5%) Least (2.8%) or rooftop units % in non-house living 2nd greatest (0.9%) Greatest (1.3%) None None quarters % in sub-standard units Least (1.8%) Greatest (12.9%) Housing changes since previous housing Tenure type 2nd greatest % of downward changes (4.6%) Greatest % of upward changes (7.4%) 2nd greatest % of first-time householders (62.2%) Greatest % of downward changes (6.0%) Greatest % of first-time householders (66.3%) Housing size 2nd greatest % of downscaled size (315%) Greatest % of downscaled size (37.1%) Greatest % of upscaled size (52.3%) Greatest % maintained same housing size (48.2%) Next housing expectation % expected home purchase 2nd greatest (22.1%) 3rd greatest (21.4%) Greatest (25.6%) Least (17.8%) Tenure change 2nd greatest expected upward changes (44.3%) 1.7% expected downward changes Least % expected upward changes (29.4%) Greatest % expected same tenure type (70.6%) None expected downward changes Greatest % expected upward changes (46.0%) None expected downward changes None expected downward changes Housing size Majority expected upscaling (94.4%) Majority expected upscaling (92.4%) None expected downscaling Greatest % expected downscaling (6.8%) Note. rief summary of major findings based on group comparisons are presented. Refer to <Table 5> for description of each group. Refer to table note of <Table 2> for calculation of the housing costs. No significant difference found by Duncan s Posthoc test at p<.05. 2nd greatest % expected downscaling (4.9%) Least % expected upscaling (87.2%) 탑방, 비주택거처, 최저주거기준미달가구의비율이높은특성을보여이들의주거비자립을위하여주거수준을타협한경우가많은것으로추측한다. 분석대상청년 1인임차가구중 11.4% 는가족의지원을받았음에도불구하고본인주거비부담이큰가구 (FOO) 로, 가구특성으로미루어볼때해당집단은대 제 28 권제 3 호 (2017. 6)
20 문소희 이현정 학생과취업준비생이주를이룬집단으로해석되며, 여성과최초가구주, 비수도권거주가구비율이가장높은집단이다. 이들은네집단중평균주거면적이가장작고최저주거기준미달가구의비율이가장높아주거수준이높지않음에도불구하고가족의지원을받고도주거비부담문제가해결되지않아추가적인제도적지원이가장필요한대상으로판단한다. 가족지원을받고본인주거비부담이작은가구집단 (FOX) 과가족지원을받지않고본인주거비부담이큰가구집단 (FXO) 은대졸이상고학력자의비율이나서울및수도권거주가구비율이높으며, 상대적으로주거면적이크다는공통적인특성을보였다. 반면, 이두집단은직전주거대비현재주거의변화나현재주거대비다음주거에대한기대에서서로상반된특성을보였다. 가족지원을받고본인주거비부담이작은가구집단 (FOX) 은현재주택으로이사시점유유형의상향이동을경험한가구나최초가구주의비율이높은경향을보였으나, 주거규모의축소를경험한가구의비율이가장높은반면, 다음이사시에는점유유형의상향이동에대한기대는가장낮고주거규모의확대에대한기대는가장높은경향을보였으며, 주택구매에대한기대도낮았다. 이와반대로, 가족지원을받지않고본인주거비부담이큰가구집단 (FXO) 은현재주택으로이사시점유유형이하향되거나주거규모가확대된가구의비율이가장높은반면, 다음이사시에는주택구매나점유유형의상향이동, 주거규모의축소를기대하는가구의비율이가장높은특성을보였다. V. 결론 1. 결과의적용본연구는 2014년주거실태조사마이크로데이터를사용하여청년 1인임차가구를가족지원과주거비부담수준에따라네개의집단으로유형화하고현재주거실태와다음주거기대를집단에따라비교 분석하였다. 분석결과, 가족지원은최초가구의형성과점유유형변화와깊은관계가있고, 본인주거비부담수준은현재주거수준, 직전주거대비현재주거의면적변화, 현재주거대비다음주거의주거면적변화기대와연관이있는것으로나타나, 가족지원과본인주거비부담이청년 1 인임차가구의주거수준과주거기대에미치는영향력을확인할수있었다. 분석대상가구의 27.4% 는현재주택의보증금을지불하기위하여가족지원을받은것으로나타났는데, 이는본연구와동일하게 2014년주거실태조사마이크로데이타를이용한선행연구중 1인가구에국한하지않고민간임대전세및보증부월세청년가구 ( 가구주연령 20-34세 ) 전체를대상으로한 Park and Lee(2015) 의연구에서보고한주거비가족지원비율과유사한결과이다. 하지만, 2014년주거실태조사에서는임차가구에대한가족지원금을조사함에있어서현재보증금중가족지원금액수만을조사하였기때문에, 매달월세에대한지원이분석되지않았다는점을감안해야한다. 또한, 일반적으로우리나라에서가족으로부터목돈의자금을주거비로지원받았을경우, 그돈을가족에게되돌려주기보다는다음주거를위한자금의일부로다시쓰이는경우가많기때문에, 이전주거의가족지원금이현재주거비로이월된경우등을종합적으로감안한다면실제청년가구의가족지원의존상태는더심각할것으로예상된다. 본연구에서는기존의주거비부담분석방식과는달리, 현재주거비중가족지원금을제외한 본인부담주거비 가소득중차지하는비율을이용한 본인주거비부담 개념을사용하여청년임차가구의주거비부담여부를판정하였는데, 분석대상청년 1인임차가구의약 40% 가본인소득중가족지원금을제외한순수본인부담주거비가차지하는비율조차 30% 이상인 본인주거비부담이큰가구 로나타났으며, 전체분석대상의 11.4% 가가족지원을받았음에도불구하고본인주거비부담이큰것으로나타나는등청년 1인임차가구의주거비부담문제가가족의지원으로해결될수없음을볼수있다. 또한, 성인이된자녀를경제적으로부양하는것이부모의노후대비에부정적으로작용하여노인가구주거문제로이어질가능성이매우크고, 부모가지원해줄수있는지여부나지원규모가청년가구의신규형성이나안정적인주거생활에결정적인영향을주는것은결국사회적갈등으로연결된다. 따라서, 청년가구의주거문제를가족의책임으로미루는것은무리가있으며, 제도적인지원을통하여그격차를줄여나가는것은청년가구의주거권확보와사회안정에있어서매우중요하다. 현재주거의주거비부담이작은가구는지하, 반지하, 옥탑방, 비주택거처등소위 지 옥 비 거주가구의비율이높은경향을보였다. 이는본인이주거비지불능력범위에서불가피하게열악한주거상황을선택한가구가많음을보여주는예로해석된다. 하지만, 이러한주거유형은냉 난방과곰팡이, 방범등에극히취약하여장기간거주할경우거주자의신체적, 정신적건강과안전에악영향을끼칠수있으므로시급히해결되어야하는문제임에도불구하고, 이러한주거유형에대한주거실태조사결과는매우부족하다. 따라서, 청년가구가많이거주하고있는고시원, 고시텔, 원룸형주호의실태에대한정확한실태파악을기반으로한청년가구주거환경개선대책에대한연구가필요하다. 또한주거비부담이작은가구가가다음이사시주거면적의증가를더낙관적으로기대하고있는경향을볼수있는데, 이는주거비부담이작은가구가저축을할수있는가능성이상대적으로높기때문인것으로해석된다. 하지만최근의취업난과불안정한주택시장, 전세주택의감소와전세가격의급등은경제적으로취약한청 한국주거학회논문집
2014 년도주거실태조사에나타난청년 1 인임차가구의가족지원및주거비부담에따른주거실태및주거기대 21 년가구의주거안정성과저축가능성에큰위협이되고있다. 이를종합하면, 청년가구를대상으로하는행복주택등의임대주택공급과주거비지원정책등청년가구의주거비부담을줄일수있는정책이확대시행되어야하며, 이러한주거지원정책과저축유도를연계하는프로그램의도입등을통하여향후주거의상향이동과순행적생애과업달성을긍정적으로유도할수있는정책적방안에대한면밀한검토가필요하다. 2. 한계점및후속연구제안본연구는분석과정및 2차자료활용에따른한계점역시내포하고있다. 먼저, 본연구는가족지원과주거비부담여부에따른주거실태와주거기대를분석함에있어서, 카이제곱검정과일원배치분산분석등단순집단비교를위주로진행되었다는한계점을가진다. 하지만, 본연구는기존연구에서다루지않았던청년임차가구의가족지원및주거비부담실태가현재주거실태와다음주거기대에미치는영향력을분석하였다는점에서의의를가지며, 그개괄적인관계를조명하였다는점에서가치가있다. 이후연구에서는가족지원과주거비부담여부를단순히 4집단으로비교하여개별독립변수를일대일로비교하는것을넘어서주거비가족지원과주거비부담에영향을주고받는다양한요인을복합적으로분석하면정책제안을위한더실용적인결과를도출할수있을것이다. 3. 주거실태조사개선을위한제안주거실태조사와같은국가통계조사의마이크로데이터는일반연구자개인이확보하기힘든표본규모나표본추출의정당성이일정수준까지확보되어있다는점에서활용가치가매우크다. 하지만, 2차자료를활용하는것은개별연구자의필요를모두충족시키는데에는한계가있다. 본연구의진행과정에서나타난주거실태조사일반가구조사마이크로데이터이용의한계점에대한보완제안사항은다음과같다. 첫째, 주거실태조사신혼부부패널조사와같이직전및다음주거의주거비원천에대한항목을포함시킬것을제안한다. 둘째, 현재주거비가족지원여부조사시, 이사전주거에서받았던가족지원금이그대로이월되었는지여부를좀더세심하게구분하여조사해야한다. 셋째, 주거실태조사가거듭되면서조사도구가지속적으로개선되는것은고무적이지만, 항목및측정수준에있어서일관성은어느정도유지가되는것이주거실태변화의추이를파악하고분석하는데도움이될것이다. 예를들어서주택자가보유에대한인식을 2012년에는 5 점척도로조사하고, 2010년과 2014년에는이분형척도로조사하였으며, 주거관과관련된항목이 2012년도조사에서만포함되어있는등주요항목의변화가있었다. 주거실태조사가우리나라주택정책에있어서가지는의의는매우크며, 주거학연구에있어서도매우중요한부분을차지하고있다. 앞으로주거실태조사의개선과안정화, 그리고홍보로인식수준과활용도가더욱높아진다면더의미있는연구가많이이루어질수있을것이다. References 1. aek, D. J. (2008). study on housing preferences of career beginners: ased on questionnaire survey in Seoul. Unpublished master's thesis. Konkuk University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Choi, E. Y. (2014). Study on housing situation and policy of young households in Seoul [ 서울시청년가구의주거실태와정책연구 ]. Seoul: The Institute for Democracy. 3. Choi, W. R. (2016. 1. 10). Fair starting line for young persons 3 Economic level of most parents of young persons with housing instability below midium level. [ 청년에게공정한출발선을 3 주거불안 청년대부분부모의경제력중간이하 ]. Hankyoreh. Retrieved from http://www. hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/725533.html# csidxd6c4c43e0c9ac0a8fa9b678c4fb9f4e. 4. Chung, E. C. (2012). Housing costs and household formation of young adults in Korea. Journal of the Korea Real Estate nalysts ssociation, 18(2), 19-31. 5. Cook, C. C., Steggell, C. D., Suarez,., & Yust,. L. (2006). Housing affordability. In J. L. Merrill, S. R. Crull, K. R. Tremblay, Jr., L. L. Tyler &. T. Carswell (Eds.), Introduction to housing (pp. 225-255). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. 6. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2014). The state of the nation's housing 2014. Retrieved from http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/publications/ state-nations-housing-2014 7. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2016). The state of the nation's housing 2016. Retrieved from http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/state_nations_housing 8. Kang, S. -., & Hong, H. -O. (2013). study on awareness and housing preferences about public rental housing among career starting persons. Proceedings of utumn nnual Conference of Korean Housing ssociation, Vol. 25, No. 2 (pp. 397-402), Seoul, Korea. 9. Kim, K. S., & Ko, S. C. (2008). n analysis of the national rental housing needs group in Seoul: With a special reference to the residual income approach. Journal of Korea Planning ssociation, 43(2), 111-130. 10. Kim, M. K. (2016). Housing consumption characteristics of young households [ 청년가구주거소비특성 ]. Seoul: Korea Housing Institute. 11. Kwon, H. J., & Lee, H. -J. (2015). Household and housing characteristics of young renters in South Korea in relation to housing value clusters. Journal of the Korea Housing ssociation, 26(6), 43-52. 12. Kwon, J. W., & Lee, E. J. (2013). Report on young people's housing poverty [ 청년주거빈곤보고서 ]. Proceedings of the 3rd Housing Welfare Conference [ 제3회주거복지컨퍼런스자료집 ], 562-578. 13. Kwon, S. J. (2016). One of two young persons is a 제 28 권제 3 호 (2017. 6)
22 문소희 이현정 kangaroo kid... Increase in young persons asking for parental supports for home purchase [ 캥거루청년 2 명중 1 명... 집살때손벌리는청년도늘어 ]. ridgenews. Retrieved from http://www.viva100.com/main/view.php?key=201602 25010007278. 14. Lee, H. -J. (2014a). Housing costs of young college graduate renters in capital region reflected in the 2012 Korea Housing Survey. International Journal of Human Ecology, 15(2), 93-104. 15. Lee, H. -J. (2014b). Expectations on post-college housing and parental supports of workforce entry preparers from non-capital regions. Journal of the Korea Housing ssociation, 25(3), 155-164. 16. Lee, H. -J. (2015a). Housing costs of beginning-stage career young renters in Seoul metropolitan area. Journal of the Korea Housing ssociation, 26(1), 71-79. 17. Lee, H. -J. (2015b). Comparisons of young renter households housing situation by locations reflected in the 2012 Korea Housing Survey. Journal of the Korea Housing ssociation, 26(1), 81-90. 18. Lee, H. -J., Goss, R. C., & eamish, J. O. (2014). Housing costs of the U.S. young professionals in rental units. Presentation at the 2014 nnual Conference of the Housing Education and Research ssociation, Kansas City, MO, US. 19. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. (2014). The 2014 Korea Housing Survey: Research report [2014 년도주거실태조사 : 연구보고서 ]. Sejong: uthor. 20. Ministry of Land, Transport and Marine ffairs. (2011). Minimum housing standard (mended on May 27th) [ 최저주거기준 (5 월 27 일개정 )]. Ministry of Land, Transport and Marine ffairs Public nnouncement No. 2011-490 [ 국토해양부공고제 2011-490 호 ]. Seoul: uthor. 21. Ministry of Land, Transport and Marine ffairs. (2012). The 2012 Korea Housing Survey: Research report [2012 년도주거실태조사 : 연구보고서 ]. Seoul: uthor. 22. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2009). The right to adequate housing. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/ FS21_rev_1_Housing_en.pdf 23. Park, J. -., & Lee, H. -J. (2015). Determinants of family supports for young renter households. International Journal of Human Ecology, 16(2), 21-31. 24. Shin, S. Y. (2007). Measuring and monitoring housing affordability for metropolitan Seoul. Seoul: Seoul Development Institute. 25. The Presidential Committee for Young Generation & Presidential Committee for National Cohesion. (2016). Survey on young persons and their parent generation's perception of young persons job opportunity issues [ 청년일자리문제에대한청년, 부모세대인식조사 ]. Seoul: uthor. Received: January, 9, 2017 Revised: February, 1, 2017 ccepted: May, 19, 2017 한국주거학회논문집