RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    문화재 소유자의 재산권 존중과 공적 책무 = Property Rights and Public Responsibilities of Private Owners of Cultural Heritage

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A60161936

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    The Plight of cultural heritage is the controversy over private versus public property in Korea. As a matter of law, Article 23 of the Korean constitution stipulates that private ownership shall be subject to restrictions due to the public responsibilities or demands. Hence, private owners of cultural heritage bear the burden of public responsibilities regardless of the enjoyment of constitutional rights by nature. Moreover, Government and public hands owe the duty to protect the private ownership of cultural heritage and have the authority to impose the restrictions on the ownership for purposes of the public good under Constitution. With regards to the restrictions of the private ownership of cultural heritage, there may be a general concern of conflicts of interests between private owners and public hands. The questions that remain designation of cultural heritage, cultural heritage protection, and compensation by public hands are: the establishment of standards and limitation of infringement of private ownership. In addition, Article 2 Section 1 of Cultural Heritage Protection Act defines cultural heritage: The following shall be considered as ``cultural heritage``: a national, ethnic, and world heritage, formed artistically or naturally, and that has historical, academic, and scenic values. It is not clear, however, whether Government or public hands may set forth the connotation of the cultural heritage in terms of exertion of its authority under the law. As a result, the question of whether the private ownership of cultural heritages can be restricted is ambiguous and conflicted. Thus, the need to provide more concrete definition of the concept of cultural heritage under the current law is substantial. Otherwise, it is necessary to ensure that Government and courts consider careful way in application and interpretation of the current law without the technical or legislative solution in the case of any provisions of restrictions on the private ownership such as the designation of the cultural heritage. For the purpose of claiming the cultural nation under Constitution, Government has the authority to limit the private ownership by nature and legitimately. Nonetheless, the question is if the restrictions on the private right can be justified without appropriate compensation in the context of the characteristics of restrictions on private ownership. That is, there are two different perspectives on the restriction: General or abstract measure does not require any compensation, but public infringement does. To sum, in the absence of the clearly defined or interpreted definition of compensation for restricted private ownership of cultural heritages, it is necessary to consider legislative solution in order for avoiding conflicts of interest under Constitution and Cultural Heritage Act.
    번역하기

    The Plight of cultural heritage is the controversy over private versus public property in Korea. As a matter of law, Article 23 of the Korean constitution stipulates that private ownership shall be subject to restrictions due to the public responsibil...

    The Plight of cultural heritage is the controversy over private versus public property in Korea. As a matter of law, Article 23 of the Korean constitution stipulates that private ownership shall be subject to restrictions due to the public responsibilities or demands. Hence, private owners of cultural heritage bear the burden of public responsibilities regardless of the enjoyment of constitutional rights by nature. Moreover, Government and public hands owe the duty to protect the private ownership of cultural heritage and have the authority to impose the restrictions on the ownership for purposes of the public good under Constitution. With regards to the restrictions of the private ownership of cultural heritage, there may be a general concern of conflicts of interests between private owners and public hands. The questions that remain designation of cultural heritage, cultural heritage protection, and compensation by public hands are: the establishment of standards and limitation of infringement of private ownership. In addition, Article 2 Section 1 of Cultural Heritage Protection Act defines cultural heritage: The following shall be considered as ``cultural heritage``: a national, ethnic, and world heritage, formed artistically or naturally, and that has historical, academic, and scenic values. It is not clear, however, whether Government or public hands may set forth the connotation of the cultural heritage in terms of exertion of its authority under the law. As a result, the question of whether the private ownership of cultural heritages can be restricted is ambiguous and conflicted. Thus, the need to provide more concrete definition of the concept of cultural heritage under the current law is substantial. Otherwise, it is necessary to ensure that Government and courts consider careful way in application and interpretation of the current law without the technical or legislative solution in the case of any provisions of restrictions on the private ownership such as the designation of the cultural heritage. For the purpose of claiming the cultural nation under Constitution, Government has the authority to limit the private ownership by nature and legitimately. Nonetheless, the question is if the restrictions on the private right can be justified without appropriate compensation in the context of the characteristics of restrictions on private ownership. That is, there are two different perspectives on the restriction: General or abstract measure does not require any compensation, but public infringement does. To sum, in the absence of the clearly defined or interpreted definition of compensation for restricted private ownership of cultural heritages, it is necessary to consider legislative solution in order for avoiding conflicts of interest under Constitution and Cultural Heritage Act.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 김영삼, "특별법제정을 통한 역사문화도시의 보존과 개발에 관한 연구" 6 : 1998

    2 오창섭, "토지재산권의 공용제한과 손실보상 - 문화재보존지구에 대한 손실보상을 중심으로" 10 : 1996

    3 남궁승태, "역사적 문화환경에 관한 법제의 현황과 과제" 2000

    4 남궁승태, "역사적 문화환경권과 고도보존의 문제" 법과사회이론학회 2000

    5 정훈, "문화재지정과 재산권 보호" 한국공법학회 32 (32): 2003

    6 길준규, "문화재의 개념과 그 구성요건" 한국공법학회 30 (30): 2001

    7 김수갑, "문화재보호법의 체계" 법과사회이론학회 2000

    8 심한별, "문화재 및 주변지역의 현상변경 관련 갈등에 대한 연구 - 1997년부터 2006년까지 중앙행정심판 재결 사례를 중심으로" 대한건축학회 26 (26): 217-225, 2010

    9 전재경, "문화유산법제 개선방안" 한국법제연구원 2000

    10 Ernst-Rainer Hönes, "Zum Kulturgutbegriff der Haager Konventionen von 1899 bis heute" 985-995, 1998

    1 김영삼, "특별법제정을 통한 역사문화도시의 보존과 개발에 관한 연구" 6 : 1998

    2 오창섭, "토지재산권의 공용제한과 손실보상 - 문화재보존지구에 대한 손실보상을 중심으로" 10 : 1996

    3 남궁승태, "역사적 문화환경에 관한 법제의 현황과 과제" 2000

    4 남궁승태, "역사적 문화환경권과 고도보존의 문제" 법과사회이론학회 2000

    5 정훈, "문화재지정과 재산권 보호" 한국공법학회 32 (32): 2003

    6 길준규, "문화재의 개념과 그 구성요건" 한국공법학회 30 (30): 2001

    7 김수갑, "문화재보호법의 체계" 법과사회이론학회 2000

    8 심한별, "문화재 및 주변지역의 현상변경 관련 갈등에 대한 연구 - 1997년부터 2006년까지 중앙행정심판 재결 사례를 중심으로" 대한건축학회 26 (26): 217-225, 2010

    9 전재경, "문화유산법제 개선방안" 한국법제연구원 2000

    10 Ernst-Rainer Hönes, "Zum Kulturgutbegriff der Haager Konventionen von 1899 bis heute" 985-995, 1998

    11 Annette Hipp, "Schutz von Kulturgütern in Deutschland"

    12 Dolzer, "Rechtsfragen des interationalen Kulturgüterschutzes" 1994

    13 Fechner, "Prinzipien des Kulturgüterschutzes" 1996

    14 Kerstin Odendahl, "Kulturgüterschutz" Mohr Siebeck 2005

    15 Ernst-Reiner Hönes, "Kulturdenkmalbegriff und Eigentumsschutz" 2003

    16 Sabine von Schorlemer, "Internationaler Kulturgüterschutz" 1992

    17 Joachim Berndt, "Internationaler Kulturgüerschutz. Abwanderungsschutz, Regelungen im innerstaatlichen Recht, im Europa-und Völerrecht"

    18 Pieroth, "Grundrechte - Staatsrecht II" C.F.Müller Verlag 1999

    19 Felix Hammer, "Die geschützten Denkmale der Landesdenkmalschutzgesetz" 358-365, 1995

    20 Ernst-Rainer Hönes, "Der Kulturdenkmalbegriff im Denkmalschutzrecht" 413-419, 1984

    21 Antje-Katrin Uhl, "Der Handel mit Kunstwerken im europäischen Binnenmarkt. Freier Warenverkehr versus nationaler Kulturgutschutz" 1993

    22 Huse, "Denkmalpflege, 2. Aufl" 1996

    23 Gottfried Kiesow, "Denkmalpflege in Deutschland, 4. Aufl" 2000

    24 Walter Georg Leisner, "Denkmalgerechte Nutzung" 2002

    25 Hans Georg Raber, "Das kulturelle Erbe der Menschheit"

    26 Mangoldt, "Das Bonner Grundgesetz, Kommentar, 4. Aufl., Band II" 2000

    27 Barbara Genius-Devime, "Bedeutung und Grenzen des Erbes der Menschheit im völkerrechtlichen Kulturgüterschutz" 1996

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2026 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2020-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2017-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2013-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2010-01-01 등재 등재 1차 FAIL (등재유지) KCI등재
    2007-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2006-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2004-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 0.93 0.93 0.77
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0.73 0.71 0.839 0.41
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼