中國의 土地收用制度의 槪觀 - 韓ㆍ中ㆍ日 比較를 中心으로

이영수(Lee Young Soo) 한국부동산학회 2007 不動産學報 Vol.29 No.-

  1. CONTENTS<BR>  (1) RESEARCH OBJECTIVES<BR>  Since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Korea and China in 1992, the volume of trade and investment between the two countries has been rapidly increasing. However, the research on China"s land system, which is essential to Korean businesses and individual investors, is far less than enough.<BR>  In the domestic studies, even the basic data has not be collected on the land expropriation in China so far. This study tries to arrange systematically the basic materials on the land expropriation in China rather than to advance a new theory or bring into a new issue.<BR>  (2) RESEARCH METHOD<BR>  Since there has not been any research in this field, this paper compares and analyzes the land expropriation of Korea, China and Japan. In other words, this paper uses the comparative approach to study the land expropriation in China.<BR>  (3) RESEARCH RESULTS<BR>  Contrary to the general understanding that the land expropriation system does not exist in socialist countries, China has the laws concerning with the system. But the land expropriation system in China is much different from those of Korea and Japan. That is mainly because China has the socialist economic system while Korea and Japan have the capitalist system.<BR>  2. RESULTS<BR>  Generally, people have a wrong understanding that socialist states do not have land expropriation system. However, after the building of new China in 1949, China has been a lot of laws concerning the land expropriation.<BR>  By the way, China has sped UP the urbanization by rapid economic development. In the process of China"s urbanization, the government was in need of great developable land. In order to obtain urban land, the government has implemented various measures, including land expropriation. At present, China"s land expropriation is carried out following the provisions of the related laws.<BR>  Using the comparison of Korean and Japanese land expropriation system makes it easier to understand China"s land expropriation one in this paper. In the process of the analysis, this paper has treated systematically the concept, the laws based, the subject, the party concerned and the object of the land expropriation for the first time.<BR>  Since there has not been any research in this field, this paper, which compares and analyzes the land expropriation of Korea, China and Japan will be very useful to Korean investors in China. Furthermore, this paper, I hope, will pave the way for the succeeding research of those interested in this field.

중국 토지수용제도의 현황과 문제점

강효백 경희대학교 법학연구소 2008 경희법학 Vol.43 No.1

In china, various policies have been framed, such as strengthened calls for regional government account ability, social security cost for farmers as to compensation, employment rights and guarantees of livelihood. However, without allowing farmers to completely possess have the land ownership rights, such as lease and transfer rights, security rights, and the right to freely buy and sell land, such measures can be nothing more than stopgap policies. Under the justification of public interest, the regional governments in China often expropriate lands from farmers at arbitrary giveaway prices and turn such lands commercial use. An increasing number of such infringements on farmers' rights to their land has finally kindled the farmers to protest, causing social unrest. The root of the problems derived from abusive land expropriation (such as misuse of expropriation rights by the regional governments, unreasonable base and coverage of compensation, undemocratic processes of expropriation, delayed payment of compensation, and institutional inertia in moving people afterward) is lies in the incomplete ownership of land by farmers. When turning farmland into land for uses other than farming as a part of the process of expropriation of a rural community, the ownership is transferred to the state and the owners of the rural communities are not able to directly participate in the land markets. The expropriation of agricultural land and its transformation to commercial real estate often carried out by various regional governments in China is in fact market conduct. The process represents an exchange between community land ownership and state land ownership and it is supposed to be made through transactions based on negotiation. In reality, however, it is accomplished by coercive deprivation of community land ownership. * Professor, Graduate School of International Legal Affairs, Kyung Hee University. This phenomenon derives from the ‘dual track system’ in which state land and community land coexist, and by which land is expropriated in accordance with the planned economic system, while the land transaction is carried out in accordance with the market economic mechanism. This dual track system is disadvantageous for the farmers: Under this system the market price of the expropriated land far exceeds the land compensation amount, provided to the farmer. As a result, the regional governments and the businesses that carry out the transaction acquire large gains while the farmers turn over their land properties at what is practically a giveaway price. The community land ownership of Chinese farmers is in substance little more than the right of cultivation and the farmers do not even have the right to express their dissent regarding land expropriation. Under the justification of public interest, regional governments are abusing the land expropriation system while rapidly decreasing the acreage under cultivation and widening the gap between urban and rural regions, thereby leading to the basic cause of social unrest. The fundamental solution to the problem of land expropriation in China is to complement weaknesses scattered throughout various laws and regulations, such as the law of realty and the real estate administration law, and provide for systematic legal recourse that will allow farmers to possess land ownership in its entirety. The Chinese government now appears to be in the middle of promoting the enactment of land expropriation laws designed to ensure the legal rights and interests of those subject to expropriation, and include the authorization of complete land expropriation. These laws also regulate the compensation principles that are not only just and transparent, but which are also designed to maximize the efficient use of land resources. However, reforming the current rural community land ownership that does not include the right of disposal, and granting the farmers the complete land ownership, may shake th... In china, various policies have been framed, such as strengthened calls for regional government account ability, social security cost for farmers as to compensation, employment rights and guarantees of livelihood. However, without allowing farmers to completely possess have the land ownership rights, such as lease and transfer rights, security rights, and the right to freely buy and sell land, such measures can be nothing more than stopgap policies. Under the justification of public interest, the regional governments in China often expropriate lands from farmers at arbitrary giveaway prices and turn such lands commercial use. An increasing number of such infringements on farmers' rights to their land has finally kindled the farmers to protest, causing social unrest. The root of the problems derived from abusive land expropriation (such as misuse of expropriation rights by the regional governments, unreasonable base and coverage of compensation, undemocratic processes of expropriation, delayed payment of compensation, and institutional inertia in moving people afterward) is lies in the incomplete ownership of land by farmers. When turning farmland into land for uses other than farming as a part of the process of expropriation of a rural community, the ownership is transferred to the state and the owners of the rural communities are not able to directly participate in the land markets. The expropriation of agricultural land and its transformation to commercial real estate often carried out by various regional governments in China is in fact market conduct. The process represents an exchange between community land ownership and state land ownership and it is supposed to be made through transactions based on negotiation. In reality, however, it is accomplished by coercive deprivation of community land ownership. * Professor, Graduate School of International Legal Affairs, Kyung Hee University. This phenomenon derives from the ‘dual track system’ in which state land and community land coexist, and by which land is expropriated in accordance with the planned economic system, while the land transaction is carried out in accordance with the market economic mechanism. This dual track system is disadvantageous for the farmers: Under this system the market price of the expropriated land far exceeds the land compensation amount, provided to the farmer. As a result, the regional governments and the businesses that carry out the transaction acquire large gains while the farmers turn over their land properties at what is practically a giveaway price. The community land ownership of Chinese farmers is in substance little more than the right of cultivation and the farmers do not even have the right to express their dissent regarding land expropriation. Under the justification of public interest, regional governments are abusing the land expropriation system while rapidly decreasing the acreage under cultivation and widening the gap between urban and rural regions, thereby leading to the basic cause of social unrest. The fundamental solution to the problem of land expropriation in China is to complement weaknesses scattered throughout various laws and regulations, such as the law of realty and the real estate administration law, and provide for systematic legal recourse that will allow farmers to possess land ownership in its entirety. The Chinese government now appears to be in the middle of promoting the enactment of land expropriation laws designed to ensure the legal rights and interests of those subject to expropriation, and include the authorization of complete land expropriation. These laws also regulate the compensation principles that are not only just and transparent, but which are also designed to maximize the efficient use of land resources. However, reforming the current rural community land ownership that does not include the right of disposal, and granting the farmers the complete land ownership, may shake the vary fou...

토지수용과 취소소송의 대상

이철환(Lee, Cheol-Whan) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2010 法學論叢 Vol.17 No.3

행정소송법은 소송의 대상에 관하여 원처분주의를 취하고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 토지수용 절차에서 수용 재결에 불복하여 이의재결을 거치고 행정소송을 제기하는 경우에 행정소송의 대상이 되는 것은 수용재결인지 이의재결인지가 문제되었다. (구)토지수용법 하에서는 원처분주의에 대한 예외규정을 둠으로써 재결주의를 채택하였고, 판례도 재결주의의 입장을 확인하였다. (구)토지수용법을 계승한 현행 「공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률」에 의하면, “사업시행자ㆍ토지소유자 또는 관계인은 수용재결에 대하여 불복이 있는 때에는 재결서를 받은 날부터 60일 이내에, 이의 신청을 거친 때에는 이의신청에 대한 재결서를 받은 날부터 30일 이내에 각각 행정소송을 제기할 수 있다.”고 규정한다(제85조 제1항 제1문). 그러나 위 조항이 이의신청에 대한 재결(이의재결)을 거친 후 행정소송을 제기하는 경우에는 원처분인 수용 재결에 대하여 행정소송을 제기할 것인지 아니면 이의재결에 대하여 행정소송을 제기할 것인지에 관하여 법문에 명백하게 규정되어 있지 않아서 문제가 제기된다. 이러한 와중에서 이 사건 대상판결은 현행 ‘공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률’ 시행이후 이러한 문제를 다룬 최초의 대법원 판결로 보인다. 대법원은 이의재결을 취소소송의 대상으로 보았던 (구)토지수용법 하에서의 판례의 입장을 유지한 원심판결을 파기하고, 수용재결을 취소소송의 대상으로 하고, 수용재결을 한 토지수용위원회를 피고로 하여야 한다고 판시함으로써, 실무상의 이론(異論)을 정리하였다는 데에 그 의의가 크다. The Administrative Litigation Act adopted the Principle of Original Disposition for subjects of administrative litigation. However, in cases where one appeals to the Administrative Court against land expropriation, the issue is whether the subject of administrative litigation is the first adjudication of the competent Land Expropriation Committee or the second adjudication of on raising an objection against the first adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee. Under the prior Land Expropriation Act, the subject of administrative litigation was the second adjudication (Principle of Ruling), with some exceptions to allow for suits against the first adjudication of the competent Land Expropriation Committee (Principle of Original Disposition). The Supreme Court has confirmed the Principle of Ruling. The first paragraph of Article 85 of the “Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefore,” which incorporates the prior Land Expropriation Act, provides in relevant part: Any project operator, landowner or person concerned, when one is dissatisfied with an adjudication of the Land Expropriation Committee, may institute an administrative litigation within 60 days from the day when one receives a written adjudication and within 30 days from the day when one receives a written adjudication on his objection in cases where one has raised an objection, respectively. However, the foregoing provision does not clarify which is the subject of litigation, the first adjudication or the second adjudication, in cases where one files administrative litigation after receiving the second adjudication on raising an objection against the first adjudication. The Supreme Court’s ruling analyzed in this article appears to be the first ruling to address this issue. The Supreme Court revoked a lower court’s ruling that applied the Supreme Court’s position according to the prior Land Expropriation Act, under which the subject of administrative litigation was the second adjudication on raising an objection. Instead, the Court held that the subject of administrative litigation is the first adjudication of the competent Land Expropriation Committee and the defendant must be the competent Land Expropriation Committee. This ruling of the Supreme Court is important because it clears away ambiguity that arises from the process of land expropriation.

FTA시대의 토지문제와 대응과제 ― 간접수용과 투자자국가소송에 대비하여 ―

김승종 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2012 서울법학 Vol.19 No.3

This paper was launched in the wake of the indirect expropriation stated in the FTA between South Korea and the United States, April 2007, which could have critical influence upon land regulations in Korea. Indirect expropriation, like direct expropriation, refers to cases where regulatory actions taken by the government of an investment-drawing country interfere investors’ returns on investments. Should the forementioned government violate their compensation obligations on indirect expropriation, the investors can claim for reparations through ISD (Investor-State Dispute Settlement). Therefore, the Korean government will be bound to seriously reconsider the existence of land regulations, which lead American investors to claim for a considerable amount of reparations for the indirect expropriation regarding Korea’s land regulations. Meanwhile, the Korea-U.S. FTA suggests three criteria for deciding indirect expropriation cases: the economic impact of the government action, the extent to which the government action interferes with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. These three factors were also incorporated into the rules for judging regulatory taking cases that the U.S. Supreme Court put forth in the Penn Central case in 1978, and the indirect expropriation in the KORUS FTA is theoretically based upon the theory of judicial precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, namely, regulatory taking. The KORUS FTA requires the globalization of legal standards, as well as economic opening up, which tears down the trade walls and prompts free trades among nations, through indirect expropriation based upon the regulatory takings doctrine. This paper aims to grasp the actual conditions & their problems of Korean land regulations on the basis of regulatory takings' judicial precedents & investment dispute settlement cases, and to suggest the improving way of major land regulations preparing for the Investor-State Dispute(ISD) in KORUS FTA. This paper focuses on the analysis of investment disputes settlement cases as well as regulatory takings' judicial precedents as the theoretical backgrounds of indirect expropriation. In each analysis, it brings up the logical frame for reviewing the disputability of land regulations, paying attention to the relevancy to land regulations so as to derive the judgement criteria of whether they are regulatory takings or not. The diagnosis results of land regulations in Korea shows that there are the two choices to cope with changing international conditions. One is building a system for preventing violations of property rights due to oppressive regulations and the other is preparing legal rules for just compensation. For example, this paper suggests to improve the regulation impact assessment system of taking advantage of the standards for regulatory taking. In additional, it calls on lawmakers’ efforts for legal compensation for the infringement upon property right in the long view. Above all, it suggests solutions to improve the systems for the claims to purchase property infringed. A global society recently requires to open trade markets and improve legal systems to be consistent with global standards. To reach a fuller understanding of the problem, it is necessary to take steps such as improvement of legal system for adjusting public and private interests, looking back upon the land regulations concentrated for the public. 이 논문은 한미FTA에서 규정하고 있는 간접수용(indirect expropriation)과 투자자국가소송(ISD; Investor-State Dispute Settlement)이 우리나라의 토지규제에 심각한 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 문제인식에서 출발하였다. 간접수용이란 투자유치국 정부의 규제조치로 인해 직접수용(direct expropriation)과 마찬가지로 투자자의 투자이익이 상실되는 경우를 말한다. 만약 투자유치국 정부가 이에 대한 보상의무를 위반하는 경우 투자자는 투자자ㆍ국가소송을 통해 이에 대한 배상을 청구할 수 있다. 따라서 미국의 투자자가 간접수용을 이유로 투자자국가소송을 통해 막대한 손해배상을 받는 경우 정부는 이와 관련된 토지규제의 존폐를 심각하게 고려하지 않을 수 없다. 이 논문은 우리나라 토지규제의 분쟁가능성을 검토하고, FTA시대에 대처하기 위한 토지규제의 대응과제를 제시하는 데 중점을 두었다. 이를 위해 투자분쟁사례를 분석하여 간접수용과 토지규제와의 관련성을 확인하였고, 규제적 수용과 간접수용 사례에서 나타난 판단기준을 종합하여 분쟁가능성을 검토할 수 있는 기본 틀을 제시하였다. 최근 국제사회는 국가 간의 무역장벽을 제거하고 자유로운 교역을 요구하는 경제적 개방과 함께 투자자의 재산권을 보장할 수 있도록 국제적 수준의 규제시스템 정비를 요구하고 있다. 이러한 여건변화에 대응하기 위해서는 그동안 우리나라의 토지제도가 공공성을 지나치게 앞세워 온 것은 아닌지 되돌아보고, 공익과 사익이 합리적으로 조정될 수 있도록 법적ㆍ제도적 기반을 정비할 필요가 있다.

토지권수용 요건의 토지법적 고찰

이선영 한국토지법학회 2012 土地法學 Vol.28 No.1

The expropriation of land rights is the action of the state power, which compulsorily makes land rights be acquired or lapsed. It is also called the expropriation of property rights or the expropriation of the land. The land right, generally called the land property right, is not the term established in positive laws or academia, but is the fundamental right for the land separate from the property rights, also stands for land ownership and other all rights related to the land in the publicㆍprivate laws. Though the land law is not enacted yet with a special law, it can be said the fundamental law on land that supplements and practices constitutional idea, by putting the laws related to the land - the constitution, the civil law, the administrative law, etc. together. And in the light of land laws, requirements for expropriation of land rights include public need, legitimate procedures, fair rewards, etc. The current laws confine the scope of public need in the public services, which land rights can be expropriated. But the legal system is not the structure that stipulates the kinds of public services and then expropriates land rights for that business, but is the structure that in case there are regulations that can expropriate land rights, the related businesses become public services. This is putting the cart before the horse. Besides, by regarding authorization of the enforcement plan of the certain business, i.e. administrative procedure as approval of the business, i.e. quasi-judicial procedure, the principle of lawful procedure under the constitution is violated and the right to trial is infringed. Though the Constitutional Court has ruled that these regulations are constitutional, reexamination of the legislation system about expropriation of land rights on the basis of the principle of legal public services, lawful procedure, etc. is required. To justify expropriation of land rights, reasonable compensation must be paid. Resonable compensation theoretically means complete compensation for the objective value of the land, but on the positive law, means to compensate with 'fair prices appraised on the basis of the official land value'. This is being realized by the appraisal system for compensation by means of steady appraisal criteria, methods, procedures, etc. and this structure is being operated, depending on the appraisal system that aims at formation of fair land prices. In case appraised prices based on the official land value are not reasonable compared with normal sale price level of neighborhood at the time of compensation, the appraisal is done by revising them along the sale price level. Because not only do normal sale prices become barometer of economic value, but also the constitution guarantees the right of land value use, i.e. the right to use the fair value of his or her land. The Supreme Court rules that the appraisal can be done in consideration of neighboring normal sale prices, in case the prices appraised on the basis of the official land value are not proper. And the Constitutional Court rules these regulations do not violate the constitution. But even though regulations of the law that have unconstitutional elements are supplemented by the appraisal system and prejudication, and then those are settled, the legislation can't be justified. Consequently, compensation regulations by 'fair prices appraised on the basis of the official land prices' will have to be reformed. 토지권수용은 토지권을 강제적으로 취득 또는 소멸시키게 하는 국가권력 작용이다. 이를 재산권수용 또는 토지수용이라고도 한다. 토지권은 실정법이나 학계에서 확립된 용어는 아니지만, 재산권에서 분리된 토지에 관한 기본적 권리로서 보통 토지재산권이라 하며, 토지소유권 및 그 밖의 토지에 관한 공ㆍ사법상의 모든 권리를 말한다. 토지법은 아직 단행법으로 제정되어 있지 않지만 헌법, 민법, 행정법 등 토지관련 법규를 종합해 보면 헌법이념을 보충하고 실천하는 토지에 관한 기본법이라 할 수 있고, 토지법 측면에서 토지권수용 요건은 공공필요에 의한, 적법절차에 의한, 정당한 보상에 의한 수용 등을 들 수 있다. 현행법은 토지권을 수용할 수 있는 공공필요의 범위를 공익사업에 한정하고 있고, 공익사업의 종류를 법정하여 그 사업을 위해 토지권을 수용하는 법체계가 아니라, 토지권을 수용할 수 있다는 규정을 두고 있으면 어떤 사업이 공익사업으로 의제되는 법체계가 되어 본말이 전도되고 있다. 그리고 행정적 절차인 어떤 사업의 실시계획인가를 준사법적 절차인 사업인정으로 간주함으로써 헌법상 적법절차원칙을 위반하고 재판을 받을 권리를 침해하고 있다. 이러한 법률의 규정에 대해 헌법재판소는 합헌결정을 유지하고 있으나 공익사업법정주의, 사업인정절차 등 토지권수용에 관한 입법체계의 재검토가 요구된다. 토지권수용이 정당화되기 위해서는 정당한 보상을 지급하여야 한다. 정당한 보상이란 이론상으로는 토지의 객관적 가치의 완전한 보상을 의미하지만 실정법상으로는 ‘공시지가를 기준으로 하여 평가한 적정가격’이 되고 있다. 이는 일정한 평가기준ㆍ방법 및 절차 등의 보상평가제도에 의해 실현되고 있으며, 이 제도는 토지의 적정가격 형성을 목적으로 하는 감정평가제도에 의존하여 운영되고 있다. 보상시점 현재 공시지가를 기준으로 평가한 가격이 만약 인근의 정상적인 매매가격수준과 비교하여 적정하지 못한 경우에는 그 매매가격수준대로 보정하여 평가한다. 왜냐하면 정상적인 매매가격은 경제적 가치의 척도가 될 뿐만 아니라 헌법은 소유토지의 정당한 가치를 향유할 권리, 즉 토지가치권을 보장하고 있기 때문이다. 대법원은 공시지가를 기준으로 평가한 가격이 적정하지 아니할 때에는 인근의 정상적인 거래가격을 참작하여 평가할 수 있다 하고, 헌법재판소는 이 규정은 헌법에 위반되지 않는다고 한다. 그러나 위헌요소가 있는 법률의 규정이 감정평가제도와 판례에 의해 보완되어 그것이 치유되고 있다하여 그 입법을 정당화 할 수 없는 것이므로 ‘공시지가를 기준으로 하여 평가한 적정가격’ 보상 규정은 개선되어야 할 것이다.

중국의 토지징수에 있어서 손실보상 문제

이성연(Lee, Sung Yeon) 한국토지공법학회 2009 土地公法硏究 Vol.43 No.2

현대 법치국가에서 국민의 자유와 재산권을 보장하는 것은 국가가 존재하는 중요한 목적이라고 할 것이다. 토지징수권의 행사는 피징수자에게 특별한 희생을 부담지우고 있다. 따라서 토지징수로 인한 경제적 손실에 대해서 당연히 합리적인 보상을 해줘야 한다. 합리적인 손실보상은 국민의 재산권을 보호하기 위해서 뿐만 아니라 토지징수자체를 원활하게 수행하기 위해서도 꼭 필요하다고 할 것이다. 중국은 개혁개방이래 사회경제의 발전과 도시화가 급속하게 진행됨에 따라, 농촌집체경제조직의 토지는 건설용지를 확대와 도시규모의 확장에 중요한 수단이 되었다. 따라서 건설용지 확대와 도시화를 추진하는 과정에서 많은 농촌집체토지가 징수되었고, 그 결과 수많은 농민이 토지를 잃게 되었다. 중국사회 과학원이 작성한 “2005년: 중국사회형세분석과 예측”을 보면 중국이 당면한 사회문제 중에서 가장 심각한 문제가 토지징수 문제로 발생하는 사회모순이었다. 중국은 현재 농지를 잃은 농민이 4000 만명을 넘어 섰고, 매년 100만명 이상이 증가하고 있다. 또한 전국 농촌의 집단성 분쟁의 65% 이상이 토지징수로 인해서 발생한 것으로 알려지고 있다. 이처럼 토지징수 문제가 사회의 가장 큰 문제가 된 이유는 바로 토지징수 보상제도가 불합리하기 때문이다. 현행 중국의 토지징수 보상제도는 계획경제시기에 만들어졌기 때문에, 토지징수 보상범위가 매우 좁고, 보상표준이 매우 낮으며, 보상방식도 단일하고, 보상원칙도 불합리하며, 보상절차와 사법구체절차도 완비되어 있지 않다. 토지징수는 직접적인 대상이 되는 재산권을 침해할 뿐만 아니라, 토지징수로 인한 간접적인 손실을 주는 경우도 있다. 따라서 시대의 흐름에 맞고, 농민의 실질적인 재산권을 보장할 수 있는 토지징수 보상제도의 완비를 통해서 토지징수의 과정에서 발생하는 많은 사회적 모순과 충돌의 발생을 방지하고 농민의 합법적인 권리와 이익을 보호할 수 있을 것이다. Protecting the freedom and property right of the people in modern constitutional state is an important goal where the country exists. To exercise the right of eminent domain imposes a special sacrifice on people who is levied a land. So the country must reasonably compensate for economical loss caused by land expropriation. We need reasonable compensation for protecting property right of the people and easily performing land expropriation. Since china reform and open policy, social economy development and urbanized advancement acceleration, the rural collective land has become the main way for expanding the building site and the city scale. Under this process the rural collective land is widely expropriated, as a result so many farmer lost theirs farmland. “2005:Analysis and Forecast of China's Social Situation” written by the group of Analysis and Forecast of Social Situation from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences thought among china's facing social problems land expropriation issues take the premier place. There have been 40 millions farmers lost farmland and several millions increase every year. Also more than 65% of national rural group incidents were caused by land expropriation. The reason land expropriation issues take the main problem in china society just is an illogical compensation system of land expropriation. This system had formed in the time of planned economy, thus there are many problems: low standard of compensation;narrow the scope of compensation; inflexible manner of compensation; illogical principle of compensation; compensation process and judicial relief is imperfect. The land expropriation arrogate property right which is the direct object and inflict indirect loss which caused by land expropriation. thus through improving compensation system of land can prevent from caused by land expropriation process, and can protect the lawful rights and interests of farmer.

공용수용절차에서 지장물인 건축물의 보상과 소유권 취득

박건우(Park Kunwoo) 행정법이론실무학회 2021 행정법연구 Vol.- No.65

그동안 토지보상법이라는 공법의 영역에서는 토지와 별도로 건축물의 수용과 보상을 둘러싼 법률문제를 본격적으로 다루고 있는 논의를 찾아보기 쉽지 않았다. 지장물로서 건축물 수용과 보상은 토지수용에 수반하는 부차적인 문제로 취급되거나 마치 토지수용과 동일한 논리가 적용될 수 있는 것처럼 오해되어 온 측면이 있다. 지장물의 처리에 관하여 우리 토지보상법이 채택하고 있는 이전주의 원칙은 일본 토지수용법의 강한 영향을 받아 도입된 것이다. 그러나 철근 콘크리트 건물이 건축물의 주종을 차지하고 있는 현재 우리나라에서 건축물에 대하여 다른 지장물과 무차별적으로 이전주의를 적용하고 있는 것은 현실과 맞지 않다. 입법론과는 별개로, 현행 토지보상법 하에서 지장물인 건축물을 어떻게 처리할 것인가는 두가지 주요한 해석상의 문제점을 안고 있다. 첫번째는 어떠한 경우에 사업시행자가 지장물인 건축물의 소유권을 취득한다고 볼 것인가(소유권 취득의 문제)의 문제이고, 두번째는 지장물을 철거하는 방법은 무엇인가(집행의 문제)이다. 이 글에서는 대법원 2018다277419 판결에서 쟁점이 된 지장물인 건축물의 소유권 취득의 문제를 살펴보았다. 토지보상법에서 수용과 보상의 단위는 원칙적으로 민법의 법리에 따르지만, 그것만으로는 해결할 수 없는 경우도 존재한다. 이러한 경우에는 토지보상법이 헌법으로부터 부여받은 적정한 수용과 정당한 보상의 관철이라는 공법의 목적과 취지를 충분히 고려하여 합리적으로 해석할 필요가 있다. 현행 토지보상법의 해석상으로도 현재의 대법원 판례와 같이 수용재결신청을 좁게 해석하는 것은 타당하지 않다. 법률 규정의 변화에도 불구하고 지장물의 처리에 관한 한국의 실무와 수용재결례는 동일하게 운용되어 왔으며, 폐기형 지장물에 대하여 가격보상을 지급하는 경우에는 사업시행자가 이를 취득하여 스스로 제거할 의사로서 묵시적으로 수용재결신청이 있다고 보는 것이 타당하다. 사업시행자가 토지를 수용하면서 그 지상 건축물에 대한 취득가격을 보상하는 경우는 전체로서의 토지와 그 지상물을 수용목적물로 삼고 있다고 보아야 한다. 이 경우 재결 주문에 등장하는 보상금 역시 전체로서 토지와 그 지상물의 가격 합산액 전체를 기준으로 산정되기 때문이다. 지장물에 대하여 단지 이전만을 명하고 있는 현재의 재결서 주문 작성 실무도 사업시행자에게 전체로서의 토지와 지상 건축물의 소유권 취득을 명하는 형태로 개선될 필요가 있다. In the realm of public law called the Land Compensation Act, it was difficult to find a discussion that dealt with legal issues related to the expropriation and compensation of buildings separately from land. Expropriation and compensation of buildings as obstacles are treated as secondary problems accompanying land expropriation, or have been misunderstood as if the same logic as land expropriation can be applied. The principle of relocation adopted by the Korean Land Compensation Act as a principle regarding the treatment of obstructions was introduced under the strong influence of the Land Expropriation Act of Japan. However, in Korea, where reinforced concrete buildings are the main type of building, it is inconsistent with the reality that relocationism is being applied to buildings indiscriminately from other obstacles. Apart from the legislative theory, there are two major problems in interpretation of how to deal with buildings that are obstacles under the current Land Compensation Act. The first is the question of under what circumstances the project operator will acquire the ownership of the building that is an obstacle (acquisition of ownership), and the second is how to remove the obstacle (execution). In this article, the issue of acquisition of ownership of a building, an obstacle that became an issue in the Supreme Court"s 2018 Da277419 decision, was examined. In principle, the units of expropriation and compensation in the Land Compensation Act follow the jurisprudence of the Civil law, but it must be acknowledged that there are cases that cannot be resolved by that alone. In this case, it is necessary to rationally interpret the Land Compensation Act by fully considering the purpose of the public law, which is the proper expropriation granted by the Constitution and the implementation of fair compensation. Even in the interpretation of the current Land Compensation Act, it is not appropriate to narrowly interpret the application for an expropriation adjudication as in the current Supreme Court precedent. In the case where the project operator compensates the acquisition price for the building on the ground while expropriating the land, it should be considered that the land and the above-ground objects as a whole are the objects of expropriation. In this case, the compensation that appears in the adjudication of expropriation is also calculated based on the sum of the prices of the land and its land as a whole. The current practice of writing a decision order, which orders only the relocation of obstacles, needs to be improved in the form of ordering the project operator to acquire the land as a whole and the ownership of the above-ground building with price compensation.

토지수용에 관한 법적 쟁점의 해결방안

이홍렬 한국부동산법학회 2023 不動産法學 Vol.27 No.1

Article 23 (3) of the Constitution provides for the guarantee of property rights, while stipulating that property rights can be restricted based on law on the premise of payment of legitimate compensation if there is a public need. The judicial problems related to land expropriation are as follows. First, land expropriation contains legal issues regarding landowners and related persons who have interests in the land. In particular, the legal status of a person with a security right with respect to the expropriated land and a buyer with a claim for bond registration on the land is a problem. Second, if landowners receive expropriation compensation instead of losing their ownership through land expropriation, they sometimes deposit expropriation compensation on behalf of the land, so the mortgage holders acquire the right to property compensation, and the bond claimants who purchased the land acquire the right to claim. This is a matter of legal interpretation and at the same time is linked to the guarantee of property rights of landowners and interested parties. Third, there is a significant possibility that there will be a legal dispute or not consultation on the appropriate theory of compensation for loss between the landowner and the project operator who are deprived of property rights in the process of land expropriation for actual public projects. There is an opinion that public collection can be a serious infringement on private property rights in that property rights such as land of others are acquired for public interest and other welfare purposes. The main purpose of this paper is to derive public and judicial problems related to land expropriation and to find solutions to the extent possible. In particular, it is necessary to clarify whether the protection of the property rights of landowners who lose their ownership due to land expropriation can be protected in a way other than the payment of compensation for expropriation. In other words, by deriving an appropriate legal remedy for private ownership infringed by public utilities, we intend to find the right balance between public interest and private interest. 「헌법」 제23조 제3항은 재산권 보장규정을 두는 한편, 공공의 필요성이 있는 경우에는 정당한 보상의 지급을 전제로 법률에 근거하여 재산권을 제한할 수 있도록 규정한다. 토지수용과 관련해서 사법상 문제되는 것은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 토지수용은 토지소유자 및 그 토지에 이해관계를 갖는 관계인에 관한 법적 쟁점을 내포하고 있다. 특히 수용된 토지에 관해서 담보물권을 가진 사람과 토지에 대하여 채권적 등기청구권을 갖는 매수인의 법적 지위가 문제된다. 둘째, 토지수용을 통하여 토지소유자는 소유권을 상실하는 대신 수용보상금을 지급받는 경우, 수용보상금을 공탁한 경우가 있어, 이러한 수용보상금은 토지를 대신해서 발생한 것이므로 담보물권자들은 수용보상금에 대해서 물상대위의 권리를 취득하고, 토지를 매수했던 채권적 청구권자들은 대상청구권을 취득하게 되는데, 그 요건과 범위가 문제된다. 이는 법해석의 문제인 동시에 토지소유자와 이해관계인들의 재산권보장과 연결된다. 셋째, 실제 공익사업을 위한 토지수용과정에서 재산권을 박탈당하는 토지소유자와 사업시행자 간에 손실보상금의 적정설 등에 대하여 협의되지 않거나 법적 다툼이 발생할 소지가 상당하다. 공용징수는 공익사업 기타 복리목적을 위하여 타인의 토지 등의 재산권을 공공의 이익이라는 강제적인 법의 힘에 의해서 취득하게 하는 점에서, 사적 소유 재산권에 대한 중대한 침해에 해당될 수 있다는 견해가 있다. 논문은 토지수용과 관련된 공・사법상의 문제점을 도출하고 가능한 범위에서 그 해결방안을 찾는 것을 주된 목적으로 한다. 특히 토지수용으로 인해서 소유권을 잃게 되는 토지소유자의 재산권 보호를 수용보상금 지급 이외의 방법으로 보호할 수 있는가는 밝힐 필요성이 있다. 즉, 공익사업에 의해서 침해된 사적 소유권에 대한 적절한 법적 구제방안을 도출함으로써 공익과 사익이 올바른 균형점을 찾고자 한다.

토지수용 후 대체부동산의 취득요인과 만족도에 관한 연구

박성무(Park, Sung Moo),강정규(Kang, Jung Gyu) 한국주거환경학회 2022 주거환경(한국주거환경학회논문집) Vol.20 No.2

The state expropriates private land to meet the demand for realization of the public interest, and individuals want to be compensated in a fair price if they cannot refuse to take land for a state-led development project. Many previous studies have been conducted on the topic of resolving conflicts and confrontations between land expropriators and prisoners, and accordingly, various solutions such as improvement of laws and systems have been suggested. However, conflicts and confrontations over fair compensation for land expropriation have not completely disappeared from our society, and efforts to amicably resolve them are continuing. The research results obtained through this study showed that investment was the most common purpose at the time of initial acquisition of expropriated land, and the period of holding it for 3~5 years was the most. Land was the most common type of real estate acquired by substitution, followed by Land + Building. About 70% had the highest percentage of using the compensation amount as an alternative acquisition. The reasons for replacing accommodation compensation with real estate were tax benefits and high future value. The biggest obstacle to the acquisition of alternative real estate is that the land price rises significantly as speculators purchase land near the land compensation area for profit. Then, the damage is passed on to the replacement buyer, and the government needs to block such speculative demand in advance. In addition, if a landowner receives land compensation and pays capital gains tax, the remaining land compensation amount cannot be replaced with land of the same size or value as the existing ownership. Therefore, it is necessary to further expand the reduction in capital gains tax to the acquirers of alternative real estate, and an improvement plan is needed for a wide range of recognition of the total amount of compensation for expropriation of the expropriated land.

中国国有土地上房屋征收与补偿法律制度探析 - 以公民私有财产权保护为视角 -

조동제,阮利 한국토지법학회 2017 土地法學 Vol.33 No.2

In the 21st century, in the context of the rapid development of political and economic cultures around the world, social change continues to create new waves, which has led to the acceleration of the pace of modernization of the cities. At present, China’s house expropriation forcibly recover the expropriation of state-owned land use rights’double pressure makes the housing expropriation and compensation disputes arising from China's urbanization process has been praised by the world attention. The issue of housing expropriation and compensation on China's state-owned land as a major social issue concerning the national economy and the people's livelihood, there are a lot of disputes in this area, among which compensation is one of the most controversial issues. In the process of the housing expropriation, violence enforcement of the administrative organs, "Nail households" would rather die than move, and the continuous appeal and petition have not been fundamentally solved. On January 21, 2011, the official announcement of the regulations on the expropriation and compensation of houses on state-owned land (hereinafter referred to as the Expropriation regulations) received wide attention,it has made great progress in the subject of expropriation, the purpose of expropriation, the procedure of expropriation and the compensation of the expropriation. At the same time, it also has a very important influence on the collection of administrative organs. However, it is regrettable that the regulations still do not take a crucial step towards the protection of the basic rights of those who are expropriated. In practice, there are still many problems such as difficult definition of public interest, narrow expropriation scope, imperfect property price evaluation mechanism, imperfect housing compensation hearing system and so on. In view of this, this article mainly from the perspective of citizen’s private property rights protection. A systematic summary of the current expropriation regulations. It focuses on the analysis of the difficult problems exposed in practice. Aiming at the above problems, we put forward some pertinent countermeasures and suggestions in the aspects of public interest, the scope of the collection, the price evaluation, the compensation hearing and so on. With a view to reconstructing the legal mechanism of the protection of people's rights in the state owned land, regulating the housing expropriation of the administrative organs, and maintaining the social harmony and stability. 21세기에 들어서면서 세계 각국의 정치, 경제, 문화가 급속하게 발전하는 시대적 배경하에서 사회변화는 끊임없이 새로운 조류를 일으키고 있으며, 이에 따라 각국의 도시근대화 건설속도도 가속화 되고 있다. 오늘날, 중국의 가옥수용 문제는 피수용인의 국유토지사용권을 강제 회수함으로써 중국도시화 과정에서 발생하는 가옥수용과 보상분쟁은 늘 세인의 주목을 받고 있다. 중국의 국유토지상 가옥수용과 보상문제는 국가경제와 민생문제에 관련되는 중대한 사회문제의 초점이 되고 있다. 그 중에서 가장 쟁점이 되는 것 중의 하나는 보상문제이다. 가옥 수용과정에서 행정기관의 폭력적인 집행, “알박기(钉子户)”의 철거분쟁 및 끊임없는 소송, 민원 등의 문제는 지금까지 근본적인 해결을 보지 못하고 있다. 2011년 1월 21일, 중국은 ≪국유토지상 가옥수용과 보상조례≫을 공포함으로써 중국인민들에게 많은 관심을 가지게 하였다. 그것은 가옥의 수용주체, 수용목적, 수용절차 및 수용보상 등 측면에서 크나큰 진보를 가져왔다. 동시에 행정기관의 수용업무에 대해서 매우 중요한 영향을 주었다. 그렇지만 아쉬운 부분은 본 조례가 피수용인의 기본적인 권리 보호에 많은 혜택을 주지 못한 것이 현실이다. 실무에서 공공이익 정의의 어려움, 수용 범위의 협소, 부동산가격평가체계의 미비점, 그리고 가옥수용보상 공청제도의 불건전함 등 문제가 여전히 많이 존재하고 있다. 이러한 점을 고려하여, 본문은 주로 피수용인 사유재산권 보호의 시각에서 중국의 현행 ≪국유토지상 가옥수용과 보상조례≫에 대하여 전반적으로 언급하고, 실무상에서 드러나는 많은 어려운 문제점과 이러한 문제에 대한 공공이익, 수용범위, 가격평가, 보상공청절차 등에 대하여 그에 상응한 대책과 개선방안을 분석하고 있다. 그리하여 중국국유토지상 가옥피수용인 권리보호에 대한 법률체계 개선, 행정기관의 가옥수용행위에 대한 규범 및 사회조화안정에 대한 유지보호 등의 근본 목적을 실현하는데 있다.