This study analyzes the structural limitations and directions for improvement of the current loss compensation system, focusing on the issue of just compensation for property rights infringements and losses resulting from the implementation of public ...
This study analyzes the structural limitations and directions for improvement of the current loss compensation system, focusing on the issue of just compensation for property rights infringements and losses resulting from the implementation of public projects, based on the content and limitations of the constitutional guarantee of property rights. Korea adopts the principle of legal compensation and has the Act on the Acquisition and Compensation of Land, etc., for Public Projects as the general law regarding compensation for public projects. However, the current system adopts a structure that recognizes compensation only for specific types of losses specified in the law, necessitating an examination of whether this framework sufficiently reflects the constitutional principle of just compensation. In particular, structural limitations are pointed out in that, despite public projects affecting property rights in various ways, sufficient legal remedies for the actual losses suffered by citizens are not being provided.
Based on this critical perspective, this study re-examined the constitutional legitimacy of the current loss compensation system, focusing on the principle of just compensation under Article 23, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution, and identified the system's limitations by analyzing key practical issues. In particular, recurring structural problems were identified, including the depreciation of residual land value, the failure to reflect actual land use conditions, the limited recognition of business and farming losses, a structure centered on appraisal valuation, and the formalization of deliberations by the Land Expropriation Committee. This study attributed the cause of these issues to the fact that the principle of just compensation is understood as merely a "standard for calculating compensation," and proposed the necessity of reconstructing it as a substantive constitutional standard for judging the legitimacy of restrictions on property rights. Based on this, directions for improvement across the entire system were derived, including strengthening fact-finding investigations, standardizing appraisal criteria, making negotiation and adjudication procedures more substantive, enhancing information disclosure, and improving the compensation council system.
Furthermore, through a comparative legal review, this study complementarily identified the structural limitations of our system and presented directions for the substantive implementation of the principle of just compensation. In conclusion, the loss compensation system must function as a constitutional mechanism to achieve a balance between the smooth execution of public projects and the protection of property rights; to this end, it is necessary to reorganize the structure and operation of the system centered on the principle of just compensation. From this perspective, this study is significant in that it presents theoretical and practical criteria for institutional improvement to realize just compensation. From this point of view, this study is significant in that it presented theoretical and practical standards for institutional improvement for the realization of political party compensation.