바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Space and Environment

ISSN : 1225-6706

Article Contents

Next
e-Submission

No.33

Citation Share

Issues and Improvements of Just Compensation and Compensation System for Takings in Development Projects for Public Use

Space and Environment / Space and Environment, (P)1225-6706; (E)2733-4295
2010, v.0 no.33, pp.5-47

(2010). Issues and Improvements of Just Compensation and Compensation System for Takings in Development Projects for Public Use. Space and Environment, (33), 5-47.

Abstract

These days development projects for balanced region development and urban regeneration policy is based on eminent domain in land acquisition. Development projects are necessarily faced with contradictory interest relationship never be reconciled between developers and those who lose their property and community. Especially, development projects for private use with compulsory purchase serve to confuse the legitimacy of public use concept and just compensation. Also according to recognition that tax-hungry bureaucrats and land-hungry developers produce a kind of unholy alliances through the property-led developments, there are many criticisms to the legitimacy for economic public use. This paper reexamines the just compensation philosophy and concept in context with the deprivation imposed upon the land owner, and then suggests expansion logics of compensation objects and value. And in terms with practical system I suggest improvements focusing on scope of the compensation including subjective losses and dignitary harms, exclusion rule of development gain, real estate appraisal method, sharing the development gains, and administrative procedures to compensation for takings.

keywords
공익사업, 정당보상, 손실보상, 공용수용, 감정평가, development for public use(public works), just compensation, compensation for takings, eminent domain, real estate appraisal

Reference

1.

국가청렴위원회. 2007. ｢공공택지 개발사업의 공정성·투명성 제고방안｣.

2.

국토해양부. 2009. ｢2009년도 국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 연차보고서｣.

3.

국회도서관 입법전자정보실. 2002. ｢공익수용법전: 프랑스｣. ≪해외입법≫, 제118호.

4.

김기옥. 2002. ｢공용수용과 손실보상제도에 관한 연구 : 토지보상제도의 개선방안을 중심으로｣. ≪중앙행정논집≫, 16(1), 중앙대학교 국가정책연구소, 161~190쪽.

5.

김동천. 2008. ｢공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률｣. 건설교통인재개발원 미발표 강의자료.

6.

김용창. 1998. ｢토지지대에 대한 정치경제학적 접근｣. ≪감정평가논집≫, 제8집, 한국부동산연구원, 115~140쪽.

7.

김용창. 2006. ｢택지개발사업의 개발이익 추계에 대한 연구｣. ≪한국지역지리학회지≫,제12권 제5호, 한국지역지리학회, 595~613쪽.

8.

김용창. 2007. ｢신자유주의 시대 토지공개념의 재정립 필요성｣. ≪토지공법연구≫, 제38집, 한국토지공법학회, 521~553쪽.

9.

김용창. 2008. ｢전사적 품질관리 접근에 의한 지가변동률통계의 품질평가 연구｣. ≪한국지역지리학회지≫, 제14권 제5호, 한국지역지리학회, 553~572쪽.

10.

김용창. 2010. ｢개발이익 환수제도 운영과정의 법적쟁점과 사법적 판단｣. ≪토지공법연구≫, 제48집, 한국토지공법학회, 269～296쪽.

11.

김일중. 2008. 법경제학연구: 핵심이론과 사례분석 . 한국법제연구원.

12.

류해웅. 2006. ｢개발사업법상 공용수용의 특례규정에 관한 법제적 고찰｣. ≪감정평가연구≫, 16(1), 한국부동산연구원, 29~56쪽.

13.

류해웅. 2008. ｢보상기준의 개편에 관한 입법적 고찰｣. ≪월간법제≫, 2008년 1월호, 법제처, 5~27쪽.

14.

민태욱. 2005. ｢적정가격보상원칙과 시가보상론｣. ≪부동산학 연구≫, 11(2), 한국부동산분석학회, 15~32쪽.

15.

박균성. 2007. ｢프랑스의 손실보상법제｣. ≪토지공법연구≫, 제37집 제1호, 한국토지공법학회, 91~105쪽.

16.

서경규. 2008. 공영개발에 있어 감정평가의 문제점과 개선방안 . 한국토지공사 직원교육용 자료집.

17.

신 평. 2006. ｢미국에서의 사적 개발목적을 위한 공용수용｣. ≪저스티스≫, 통권 90호(4월호), 한국법학원, 73~94쪽.

18.

이덕복. 2007. ｢급등하는 보상비. 돌파구는 없는가?｣. 2007~2011 국가재정운용계획 공개토론회 발표자료.

19.

이인권 외. 2008. 한국의 물가구조 및 국내외 가격차이 해소방안(총론) . 한국경제연구원.

20.

이준서. 2009. 개발사업절차의 표준화·간소화를 위한 법제 정비방안 . 한국법제연구원

21.

전국경제인연합회. 2005. 공장설립 관련제도의 애로실태와 개선과제 .

22.

지대식‧김승종‧손경환‧조판기. 2006. 공익사업의 원활한 수행을 위한 토지보상체계 개선 연구 . 국토연구원.

23.

최경환. 2008. ｢기획재정부 국정감사 보도자료(공익사업 목적으로 토지를 수용하는｢비사업용 토지 중과제도｣ 개선되어야)｣. 한나라당.

24.

한국토지공사 대구경북지역본부. 2008. 공영개발에 있어 감정평가의 문제점과 개선방안 .

25.

한국토지공사. 2002. 보상업무 전문성 강화를 위한 생활보상 합리화 및 보상전문인력 양성방안에 관한 연구 .

26.

한국토지공사. 2008. ｢적정보상 실현을 위한 보상제도 개선사례 및 추진계획｣. 한국토지공사택지사업처 보상심사팀 미발표자료.

27.

Alexander, G. S. 2009. “The Social-Obligation Norm in American Property Law.” Cornell Law Review, Vol.94, pp.745~819.

28.

Bell, A. and Parchomovsky, G. 2006. “The Uselessness of Public Use.” Columbia Law Review, Vol.106, No.6, pp.1412~1449.

29.

Berliner, D. 2002. Government Theft: The Top 10 Abuses of Eminent Domain, 1998～2002. The Castle Coalition.

30.

Brnovich, M. 2004. “Condemning Condemnation: Alternatives to Eminent Domain.” Policy Report, No.195, The Goldwater Institute, pp.1~21.

31.

Cazessus, M. A. 2007 “The Impact of Kelo v. City of New London and Eminent Domain on American Urban Space.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, TBA, New York, New York City, Aug. 11, 2007.

32.

Dana, D. A. 2006. “The Law and Expressive Meaning of Condemning the Poor After Kelo.” Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper, No.917891.

33.

Douglas R. Porter. 2007. A ULI Current Issues Report: Eminent Domain: An Important Tool for Community Revitalization. Urban Land Institute.

34.

Echeverria, J. D. and Merill, T. W. 2005. “Brief of the American Planning Association, the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association, and the National Congress for Community Economic Development as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents.” The Supreme Court of the United States, No.04-108.

35.

Friedman, G. 2001. “The Sanctity of Property Rights in American History.” Political Economy Research Institute, Working Papers Series Number 14.

36.

Gallimore, P. and Jayne, M. 1997. “Public and Professional Perceptions of High Voltage Overhead Transmission Line Risks: Avoiding Circularity.” Cutting Edge 1997, RICS.

37.

Garnett, N. S. 2006. “The Neglected Political Economy of Eminent Domain.” Michigan Law Review, Vol.105, No.1, pp.101~150.

38.

Heller, M. A. and Krier, J. E. 1999. “Deterrence and Distribution in the Law of Takings.” Harvard Law Review, Vol.112, No.5, pp.997~1025.

39.

Heller, M. and Hills, R. 2008. “Land Assembly Districts.” Harvard Law Review, Vol.121, No.6, pp.1465~1527.

40.

Hutchison, N., Cameron, A., Rowan-Robinson, J. 1999. “Assessing the Compensation for Electricity Wayleaves.” Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol.17(2), pp.176~190.

41.

Imrie, R and H. Thomas. 1993. “The Limits of Property-led Regeneration.” Environment & Planning C, 11(1), pp.187~102.

42.

Kelly, D, B. 2006. “The Public Use Requirement in Eminent Domain Law: a Rational Based on Secret Purchase and Private Influence.” Cornell Law Review, 92(1), pp.1~65.

43.

Kotlyarevskaya, O. V. 2005. “Public Use Requirement in Eminent Domain Cases Based on Slum Clearance, Elimination of Urban Blight, and Economic Development.” Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, Vol.5, No.2, pp.197~231.

44.

Merrill, T. W. 1985. “Trespass, Nuisance, and the Costs of Determining Property Rights.” The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.14, No.1, pp.13~48.

45.

Merrill, T. W. 1986. “The Economics of Public Use.” Cornell Law Review, Vol.72, pp.61~116.

46.

Nolon, J. R. 2006. “Historical Overview of the American Land Use System: A Diagnostic Approach to Evaluating Governmental Land Use Control.” Pace Environmental Law Review 23 Fall, pp.821~853.

47.

Pritchett, W. E. 2003. “The ‘Public Menace’ of Blight: Urban Renewal and the Private Uses of Eminent Domain.” Yale Law and Policy Review, 21(1), pp.1~52.

48.

Serkin, C. 2005. “The Meaning of Value: Assessing Just Compensation for Regulatory Takings.” Northwestern University Law Review, 99, Issue 2, pp.677~742.

49.

Somin, I. 2005. “Overcoming Poletown: County of Wayne v. Hathcock, Economic Development Takings, and the Future of Public Use.” George Mason University School of Law, Working Paper Series 18.

50.

Staley, S. R. and Blair, J. P. 2005. Eminent Domain, Private Property, and Redevelopment:An Economic Development Analysis. Reason Foundation

51.

Sturtevant Jr., G. H. 2005. “Economic Development as Public Use: Why Justice Ryan’s Poletown Dissent Provides a Better Way to Decide Kelo and Future Public Use Cases.” Federal Circuit Bar Journal, Vol.15, no.2, pp.202~253.

52.

The Castle Coalition. 2006. Redevelopment Wrecks: 20 Failed Projects Involving Eminent Domain Abuse. Arlington, VA.

Space and Environment

e-Submission OA Policy