민간제안형 도시개발사업의 갈등완화에 관한 법적 고찰

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

There is no doubt that public service must prioritize public benefits over profitability. Recently, however, as public projects have been opened to private sectors, critical questions have raised - How could the conflicts between public interests and profit assurance be compromised? and How could those contrary values be transformed to reciprocal values? - The necessity to resolve these problems has increased as well. Specifically, this study focuses on the urban development project by private sectors specified in the Urban Development Act. In particular, legal issues related to project recognition deemed and migration measures are discussed. Also, this study suggests methods to improve the capability of local governments that supervise and manage private sectors in terms of balancing public and private benefits.
On the Urban Development Act, once district designation and site specifics are publically disclosed, project recognition is supposed to be deemed by the law. Thus, it is legislator's responsibility to coordinate public and private interests or private sectors' mutual benefits, for example, by legal controls for designating districts or by restriction of designator's discretionary scope. Specifically, followings should be specified by the law: ① public interests enhancement, ② expropriation purposes, ③ expropriation requisites and procedure, ④ measures to guarantee continuous public benefits, and ⑤ proportionality principle, and also objective standards to evaluate public interest should be established to minimize project recognizer's subjectivity and to maintain public characteristics of the project. With regard to this some suggestions are made in this study. In addition, ambiguous regulations that may harm landowner's rights by private sector's participation in the project should be amended. Clarifying abstract and uncertain legal position of private proposers and reinforcing their legal duties could protect landowner's rights and minimize possible future disputes. Most of all, project designators such as local governments need to play a more active and direct role through establishing private-public cooperative relations, which aims that private sectors focus on their business, while local governments protect public interests. Finally, it is suggested that the public agreement system be adapted for private sectors to make equitable contribution to the society based on their objective profits from development projects.
Next, migration measures at private sector's discretion should be reconsidered. It is true prior migration measures tend to be regarded as dispensational by the government and they have caused frequent civil petitions and disputes even in the context of loss compensation because of their discretionary nature. Notwithstanding, public operators could at least minimize unfair infringement of landowner's right. The organizational purpose of private sectors, however, is not based on public benefits. In other aspects, reasonable migration measures may be viewed as a justifiable appeal of landowners. Therefore, regulations as to migration need to be more specified in Act on Acquisition and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Projects in such a way that private operators' power decreases and the compensation committee's legal binding force increases. Furthermore, other actions could be considered such as planning migration sites, supplying sites or housing, supporting resettlement financially, and so forth. Lastly, statistical and quantitative method to calculate migration costs that are acceptable and equitable to both private developers and landowners could promote the efficiency of migration measures.
At last, the authority of supervision and monitoring should be substantially as well as officially awarded to local governments in order to mediate public and private interests and to prevent indiscreet development. Local governments should also try to make an effort to expend their capabilities to meet these purposes. In the current local self-governing system, the authority of local governments is assumed to be delegated by residents. Therefore, in early stages to build ideas and processes of the urban master plan, the basis of the urban development project, should residents be able to participate thru the governance system and their opinion at a public hearing be reflected. In the final stage of planning, it should be legally assured that resident's representatives can attend at a local assembly. Based on reasonable criteria, metropolitan local governments should distribute and assign administrative works to lower level local governments. In this local self-governing system, local governments are expected to possess discretionary power due to their controlling ability for Ordinance or Code. As shown in some administrative regulations like guidelines for urban development, there is a possibility that the right of autonomy of local governments is infringed, for example, when how to designate developing districts or how to plan population and land usage is already determined. Thus, guidelines for urban development should deal with technical areas only. Also, the work protocol of designators as well as residents' participative system and migration measures needs to be specified by Ordinance for adjusting public-private benefits. If a new comprehensive urban development plan is introduced to manage development projects that have been separately influenced by individual laws, the consistency of national, urban, and execution plans and the sustainable long-term urban development could be expected, which, furthermore, would help with protecting property rights and improving resident's quality of life.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 1
• 제1절 연구의 배경 및 목적 1
• 제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 5
• 제2장 도시개발사업에 관한 법제 및 사례분석 7
• 제1절 민간제안형 도시개발사업의 정의 7
• 1. 민간제안형 도시개발사업의 의의 7
• 2. 민간제안형 도시개발사업의 시대적 배경 9
• 3. 민간제안형 도시개발사업의 분류 12
• 제2절 도시개발법의 제정 배경 및 목적 13
• 1. 법률의 배경 및 목적 13
• 2. 법률의 연혁 18
• 제3절 도시개발사업의 시행절차 26
• 1. 도시계획 수립단계 26
• 2. 도시개발구역 지정단계 28
• 3. 실시계획 및 시행단계 33
• 4. 준공단계 37
• 제4절 도시개발사업의 시행자 및 시행방식 38
• 1. 도시개발사업의 시행자 38
• 2. 도시개발사업의 시행방식 42
• 제5절 민간제안형 도시개발사업의 현황 및 사례분석 57
• 1. 민간제안형 도시개발사업의 추이 57
• 2. 민간제안형 도시개발사업의 사례 60
• 제3장 민간제안형 도시개발사업의 사업인정 의제에 대한 공법적 검토 69
• 제1절 논의의 배경 69
• 제2절 민간사업시행자에 대한 사업인정 의제의 헌법적 검토 70
• 1. 공익사업에 대한 헌법적 판단 70
• 2. 사업인정 의제의 합헌성 74
• 3. 민간 사업시행자에 대한 수용권 부여의 합헌성 78
• 제3절 도시개발사업의 사업인정 의제로 인한 권리침해 행태분석 83
• 1. 사업시행예정자의 법적지위 및 매수협의 성격의 모호성 83
• 2. 동의자 수 산정 기준의 비정당성 88
• 3. 사업인정 의제에 대한 불복대상 93
• 4. 사업인정 의제 관련 정당보상 논란 96
• 제4절 입법 개선방안 98
• 1. 합헌적 공공필요 기준 제정 98
• 2. 사업인정권자 공공성 판단 기준 제정 99
• 3. 수용절차 및 요건의 재정비 102
• 4. 지방자치단체의 사업참여를 통한 공익성 제고 104
• 5. 사업시행자 개발이익 및 부담의 균형 107
• 제4장 민간제안형 도시개발사업의 이주대책에 대한 공법적 검토 110
• 제1절 논의의 배경 110
• 제2절 이주대책의 법적근거 112
• 1. 이주대책의 개념적 논의 112
• 2. 이주대책의 헌법적 근거 116
• 3. 이주대책의 법적 근거 122
• 제3절 이주대책의 행태분석 125
• 1. 이주대책 이론과 현실의 정합성 125
• 2. 이주대책 기준일의 합리성 131
• 3. 이주대책 수립시점의 합리성 134
• 4. 이주대책 기준 법령위임의 적법성 135
• 5. 이주대책에 대한 구제수단의 적정성 138
• 제4절 입법 개선방안 142
• 1. 이주대책에 대한 재량축소 및 현실화 142
• 2. 이주대책 기준일 및 수립시점의 합리적 조정 145
• 3. 이주대책에 대한 구제수단의 재검토 146
• 제5장 도시개발사업의 지방자치단체 공ㆍ사익 조정 관련 법적쟁점 148
• 제1절 논의의 배경 148
• 제2절 도시계획수립 역량 강화를 통한 공익 제고 150
• 1. 분권형 도시계획체계 구축 150
• 2. 도시계획 정합성ㆍ연계성 확보 154
• 3. 개발계획 수립 및 구역지정 재량보장 157
• 제3절 실질적 지방자치를 통한 사익보호 161
• 1. 도시개발사업 권한의 기초자치단체 이양 161
• 2. 주민의 구역지정 절차 실질적 참여보장 169
• 3. 주민참여 및 이주대책 조례제정 174
• 제4절 입법 개선방안 178
• 1. 지방의회 권한강화 및 거버넌스 도입 178
• 2. 도시개발종합계획 도입 179
• 3. 기초지방자치단체 사무배분체계 재정립 181
• 4. 개발계획 및 구역지정 주민참여제도의 개선 182
• 5. 구역지정 및 이주대책 등에 대한 자치법규 제정 183
• 제6장 결 론 184
• 참고문헌 190
• ABSTRACT 200