http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
PSM기반 중소도시 주상복합 아파트의 분양가 추정에 관한 연구
박재경,조용경,이상엽,Park, Jaekyung,Cho, Yongkyung,Lee, Sangyoub 한국건설관리학회 2014 한국건설관리학회 논문집 Vol.15 No.4
주상복합 아파트는 고급화와 다양한 장점으로 꾸준히 수요가 증가하여 수도권을 중심으로 지속적으로 공급되어 왔다. 지방중소도시의 경우에는 선례도 부족하고 성공을 담보할 수 없어 주상복합 아파트의 공급이 거의 이루어지고 있지 않았다. 현재에는 소득수준이 높아진 지방중소도시에 주상복합 수요가 있으며, 수도권 주택 공급이 포화된 현실에서 새로운 사업으로써 지방중소도시 주상복합 아파트의 공급 사업을 고려할 수 있다. 그러나 사업성의 타당성 분석을 위한 지방중소도시 주택 시장의 기본적인 자료나 관련한 연구가 거의 없는 실정이다. 이에 타당성 분석의 기초가 되는 적정 분양가격을 과거 시장가격이 없는 경우에도 적정가격을 추정할 수 있는 PSM 모델을 활용하여 추정하였다. 더불어 이러한 분양가격과, UTP를 통한 가격의 수요 탄력성, 가격결정 요인을 일반 아파트와 주상복합 아파트의 두 경우로 구분하여 각각 도출하고 시사점을 제공하고자 하였다. 분석결과 OPP 기준으로 봤을 때 주상복합 아파트의 분양가가 일반 아파트의 분양가에 비해 10.8% 높게 추정되었다. UTP도 주상복합 아파트가 높은 것으로 나타났으며 일반아파트 보다 주상복합 아파트의 가격민감도가 낮은 것으로 나타났다. 가격결정 요인 분석 결과는 일반 아파트와 주상복합 아파트 모두 응답자 연령, 교육수준이 유의한 것으로 나타났으며 주상복합 아파트의 경우 가족 수도 유의한 것으로 나타났다. 연구의 결과를 통해 실무적으로 활용이 가능한 분양가 추정 방법의 제시 뿐만 아니라, 지방중소도시에 주상복합 아파트를 공급할 경우 기존의 일반 아파트에 비해 높은 가격으로 분양가를 산정할 수 있다는 사실을 확인하였다. 더불어 수요탄력성이나 가격결정 요인 등의 결과를 주택 상품 기획을 위한 마케팅 분야에도 활용을 기대할 수 있다. Since the late 1990s, mixed-use apartment, armed with high qualities and large scales with a high ratio of TFA(Total Floor Area) have been continuously provided accommodating exclusive community facilities along with high-tech securities, not to mention excellent skyline view. However, especially in mid-small cities, there have been only a few supplies. As a result, none of the mixed-use housing provided by high-end brands has ever been built in non-metropolitan area. But constructors couldn't plan the projects which aims to build the mixed-use apartment in local city, because they couldn't get the basic data or advanced research for feasibility analysis. Therefore, to suggest the useful price for mixed-use apartment supply project of local city, the PSM(Price Sensitivity Method) widely used for determining the price preferences as a market research tools has been applied. As analysis results, the estimated price of mixed-use apartment is 10.8% higher than general apartment, and mixed-use apartment has lower price sensitivity than general apartment. As price determinants, the age, education level and family size influence on UTP in significant level. It is expected that these research findings can be applied for establishing the solid marketing strategy of mixed-use apartment development project in local city.
우리 법상 배액배상의 도입이 징벌적 손해배상을 명한 외국재판의 승인·집행에 미치는 영향 - 대법원 2022. 3. 11. 선고 2018다231550 판결의 평석을 중심으로 -
박재경(PARK Jaekyung) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2023 통상법률 Vol.- No.161
Hitherto Korean case law has consistently rejected the recognition and execution of foreign country judgments awarding punitive damages under the so-called “public order requirement” of Article 217 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act. Punitive damages, based mainly on the ideology of “punishment”, was unacceptable from the standpoint of Korean civil liability law, which adheres to compensatory damages. However, Korean law has gradually accepted the notion of punitive damages in more than 20 legal areas since 2011, in the form of treble or quintuple damages. This meant that Korean courts can no more hastily jump into the conclusion that if the compensation awarded by the foreign country court is beyond the scope of compesatory damages, it violates the public order of Korea. Supreme Court Decision 2018Da231550 Decided March 11, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “the Decision”) is the leading case in which Korean Supreme Court officially declared its changed stance on recognition and enforcement of foreign country judgments awarding punitive damages. In the midst of introduction of statutory multiple damages, the change in the Courts view is not only inevitable, but must. However, it is doubtful whether the Courts changed view can be applied in the matter of the Decision. Strictly speaking, what Korean law has adopted is statutory multiple damages, not punitive damages discussed in common law countries. In Korea, the main motives of multiple damages are at promoting compensation and encouraging law enforcement, rather than punishing defendants. Also, each multiple damages law has different functions and the upper limit of compensation. That is to say, Korean civil liability law is still governed by the principle of compensatory damages, and exceptions are only granted in limited areas. Thus, the foreign country judgments awarding compensation beyond the scope of compensatory damages do not violate the Korean public policy, only if multiple damages is recognized in the corresponding area in Korea. Some might say that the “area” means individual “provision”, while others might think of “act” or “legal field”. However, since there is no objective standard on how far can be codified in the same “act” or how far can be categorized as in the same “legal field”, the scope of “area” will gradually expand, ultimately leading to the radical conclusion that every foreign country judgment ordering punitive damages is within the scope of Korean public order. For the clarity of judgment, the predictability of parties, principle of reciprocity, and the continuity with conventional case law, it is necessary to determine the scope of “area” based on “provision”. Nevertheless, the Decision judged the “area” based on “act” or “legal field” using the expression “at least”, suggesting the possibility of expanding the scope of “area” in the future. Considering that the purpose of treble damages under the Hawaii Revised Statutes is at suppressing violation through punishment unlike Korean law, and that legislators deliberately excluded “unfair trade practices” which corresponds to “unfair methods of competition” in Hawaiian law from the subject of treble damages in Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Decision is immoderately “bold”. Meanwhile, although not an issue in the Decision, it is necessary to think about whether and how to limit the recognition of the so-called “excessive compensatory damages”. In the past, lower courts limited the recognition if the compensatory damages awarded by foreign country court seems excessive, and the Supreme Court implicitly agreed with the view by approving such lower court judgments. Since the establishment of Article 217-2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act however, recent Supreme Court decisions have been continually ruling that recognition of compensatory damages ordered by foreign country court cannot be restricted based on Article 217-2 (1) and (although not explicitly stated) Article