손실보상의 발전방향 = The Perspectives of the Compensation

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

There have been many research works on compensation and continued revisions of compensation-related laws. However, the current Korean compensation law system still leaves a few unsolved problems. The problems include compensation problems relating to development profits and equity problems concerning enjoyment of benefits and apportionment of losses among developers, expropriatees, and neighboring land owners. Considering that the main purpose of the compensation for a property taking is to restore the expropriatee's living standard to the status quo ante, the compensation for a loss in living standard must be expanded. Even though almost all administrative law scholars agree with the necessity of the living standard compensation, there have been,
both legislatively and theoretically, bitter disputes over how to compensate.
The concept of compensation should be broader than it traditionally was. Accordingly, the concept of compensation should include the compensation for infringement on life or health, the indirect compensation, and the compensation for a loss in living standard. For caution's sake, the compensation should be distinguished from the social security which is based on the constitutional right to live.
In the interpretation of “just compensation” under Article 23(3) of the Constitution, scholars are divided on whether it means “complete compensation“ or ”adequate compensation.“ Recently, a new theory argues that complete compensation, which is covering the living standard compensation, means restoring the expropriatee's standard of living to that he or she enjoyed prior to the taking. The Constitutional Court of Korea takes the complete compensation theory. Some scholars argue that development gains should be compensated. However, it is the generally accepted theory that development gains should be excluded from the calculation of compensation. According to the majority's theory, as the gains are windfalls of public development projects, not fruits of expropriatees' efforts or investments, they should be returned to the society, not to the expropriatees. Under the Land Compensation Act, the general rule is that the increased value from a development should be excluded from a sum of compensation; however, in some cases, the development gains is included in compensation.
Although it goes without dispute that the compensation for a loss in living standard is necessary, the following issues are arguable and complex: the legal basis for the living standard compensation and the system, scope, and contents of the living standard compensation. There is no general provision for the living standard compensation. Article 79(2) of the Land Compensation Act provides that ”compensations for other losses from a public development shall be governed under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation.“ This Article can be interpreted as the legal ground for the living standard compensation and the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act provides enumerated items of the living standard compensation. In addition, the Land Compensation Act contains a general provision for relocation measure. Except for the relocation measure, specific acts stipulate types and contents of the living standard compensation. Consequently, the details of the living standard compensation often differ according to acts without any main reason.
Livelihood or living protection measure means restoring a expropriatee's economic standard of living to the original state prior to the land taking. There is no general provision for the livelihood protection. The Land Compensation Act includes a statutory provision only for relocation measure, not for livelihood protection measure. Some but not many individual acts include the provision for livelihood protection measure.
The relocation measure must cover a renter whose loss of residence is not recoverable because the purpo...

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

There have been many research works on compensation and continued revisions of compensation-related laws. However, the current Korean compensation law system still leaves a few unsolved problems. The problems include compensation problems relating to development profits and equity problems concerning enjoyment of benefits and apportionment of losses among developers, expropriatees, and neighboring land owners. Considering that the main purpose of the compensation for a property taking is to restore the expropriatee's living standard to the status quo ante, the compensation for a loss in living standard must be expanded. Even though almost all administrative law scholars agree with the necessity of the living standard compensation, there have been,
both legislatively and theoretically, bitter disputes over how to compensate.
The concept of compensation should be broader than it traditionally was. Accordingly, the concept of compensation should include the compensation for infringement on life or health, the indirect compensation, and the compensation for a loss in living standard. For caution's sake, the compensation should be distinguished from the social security which is based on the constitutional right to live.
In the interpretation of “just compensation” under Article 23(3) of the Constitution, scholars are divided on whether it means “complete compensation“ or ”adequate compensation.“ Recently, a new theory argues that complete compensation, which is covering the living standard compensation, means restoring the expropriatee's standard of living to that he or she enjoyed prior to the taking. The Constitutional Court of Korea takes the complete compensation theory. Some scholars argue that development gains should be compensated. However, it is the generally accepted theory that development gains should be excluded from the calculation of compensation. According to the majority's theory, as the gains are windfalls of public development projects, not fruits of expropriatees' efforts or investments, they should be returned to the society, not to the expropriatees. Under the Land Compensation Act, the general rule is that the increased value from a development should be excluded from a sum of compensation; however, in some cases, the development gains is included in compensation.
Although it goes without dispute that the compensation for a loss in living standard is necessary, the following issues are arguable and complex: the legal basis for the living standard compensation and the system, scope, and contents of the living standard compensation. There is no general provision for the living standard compensation. Article 79(2) of the Land Compensation Act provides that ”compensations for other losses from a public development shall be governed under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation.“ This Article can be interpreted as the legal ground for the living standard compensation and the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act provides enumerated items of the living standard compensation. In addition, the Land Compensation Act contains a general provision for relocation measure. Except for the relocation measure, specific acts stipulate types and contents of the living standard compensation. Consequently, the details of the living standard compensation often differ according to acts without any main reason.
Livelihood or living protection measure means restoring a expropriatee's economic standard of living to the original state prior to the land taking. There is no general provision for the livelihood protection. The Land Compensation Act includes a statutory provision only for relocation measure, not for livelihood protection measure. Some but not many individual acts include the provision for livelihood protection measure.
The relocation measure must cover a renter whose loss of residence is not recoverable because the purpose of ...

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정하중, "행정법총론" 법문사 2005

2 류지태, "행정법신론" 신영사 2000

3 박균성, "행정법론(상)" 박영사 2008

4 김남진, "행정법 I" 법문사 2008

5 김동희, "행정법 I" 박영사 2008

6 김철용, "행정법 I" 박영사 2005

7 박균성, "프랑스 損失補償法制" 한국토지공법학회 37 (37): 91-106, 2007

8 박윤흔, "최신 행정법강의(상)" 박영사 2004

9 유해웅, "신수용보상법론" 부연사 2001

10 박균성, "손실보상제도의 몇 가지 쟁점" 법제 2006

11 김영조, "생활보상의 체계와 범위, 2005년도 한국법제연구원" 2005

12 김원보, "생활대책제도 도입방안의 검토" 2005

13 류해웅, "생활권보상의 법리와 제도에 관한 고찰" 한국부동산연구원 15 (15): 69-98, 2005

14 김해룡, "기업도시개발에 있어서의 이주 내지 생활대책" 한국토지공법학회 29 : 1-23, 2005

15 Marie-Jose DOMESTICI-MET, "Utilit?publique et utilit?priv?dans le droit de l'expropriation" Recueil Dalloz Sirey 1981

16 A. CAUBRIERE, "LES PROBLEMES ACTUELS DE EXPROPRIATION POUR CAUSE D'UTILITE PUBLIQUE EN DROIT FRANCAIS" Estudios de derecho administrativo 1979

17 Jeanne LEMASURIER, "LE DROIT DE L'EXPROPRIATION" ECONOMICA 2001

18 Jacques Ferbos, "EXPROPRIATION DES BIENS" LE MONITEUR 2002

19 Pierre Bon, "EXPROPRIATION" DALLOZ 1993

20 Ren?Chapus, "Droit administratif g??al" MONTCHRESTIEN 1999

21 C. Debbasch, "Droit administratif des biens"

22 Jean-Marie Auby, "Droit administratif des biens" DALLOZ 2003

23 RENE HOSTIOU, "Code de l'expropriation" Litec 2004