지방자치단체 공유재산의 활용방안에 관한 연구 = (A) Study on the Utilization Plan of Local Government’s Shared Property

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

According to the 2020 fiscal self-reliance survey of local governments by the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, the national average degree of fiscal independence has significantly decreased from 59.4% in 2000 to 50.4% in 2020. The reason for this is that the local government’s finances have deteriorated significantly due to the expansion of the social welfare-related budget and the expansion of various subsidies due to COVID-19. Therefore, there is an increasing need for local governments to more effectively use public property in order to secure insufficient independent financial resources.
Public property is divided into administrative property and ordinary property. Administrative property is property used by local governments for administrative purposes, and in principle, judicial management, i.e., loan, sale, transfer, trust, and establishment of private powers for the purpose of investment are prohibited. In order for the private sector to conduct any kind of business, it is necessary to obtain permission to use it within the scope that does not deviate from its purpose as an administrative property, or to think about changing it into ordinary property. Common property can be broadly classified into three categories: ① building, ② infrastructure, and ③ plant. In the case of ② infrastructure and ③ plant, there are many facilities where installers and operation managers are intertwined on a large scale. On the other hand, ① building-based public facilities, so-called ‘boxes’, are small and medium-sized and are maintained, operated and managed independently by local governments.
Local governments generally recognize the local government's financial resources claimed by previous researchers. In the past, local governments simply maintained and preserved public property. However, in recent years, as the local government's finances are getting worse day by day, there is a growing interest in not only expanding local finances by using public property more efficiently but also in revitalizing the local economy. Nevertheless, it was found that the local government was unable to efficiently utilize the public property due to various conditions.
According to a survey by the Board of Audit and Inspection, there were about 40,000 cases of illegal possession of public property by local governments per year as of 2002, and it is estimated that there are many cases of unauthorized possession that the management department has not yet grasped.
The government improved the system conditions by amending the Public Property and Goods Management Act to efficiently manage the local government's public property and support its utility. For one example, the entrusted management and development system was introduced to entrust the affairs of general property so that the entrusted institution could develop the entrusted property. Therefore, in order to maximize the efficiency and efficiency of the management of the public property, the local government should prepare the conditions for the efficient operation of the public property of the local government, such as by amending the relevant ordinances of the local government. Therefore, this paper intends to present the systemic, policy, and operational problems of the improved common property management plan.
Until recently, many previous studies have been made to improve problems in the management of public property, but most of these studies so far have focused on institutional introduction and partial awareness of problems rather than specific and structural understanding and approaches to the system.
Policy alternatives for management or review of detailed methodologies that can be used in practice are insufficient, and improvement plans are mainly presented at the basic level. In addition, research on Chungcheongnamdo in terms of subjects and scope of research is rare, and it deals with issues such as information systems and management organizations for common property management in detail. Therefore, it is differentiated from this study, which seeks to find efficient management or detailed utilization methods by the newly introduced system operation methods such as trust method or consignment management/development.
Looking at the major prior studies, there is a recent study that tried to improve the efficiency by improving the information system. In this study, starting from the recognition of problems in the existing National Financial Information System (NAFIS) in relation to the management of public property, this study studied a method for efficient management of public property using the cadastral study management system (PLMAS). Through the research, an information management system was developed that could manage drawings for public land, statistical and analysis functions, and linkage with other systems, and through this, management by topic, loan status management, and data processing methods were presented.
In the preceding study, research was conducted focusing on the management organization system to improve the management problem of state-owned hybrid properties, and a case study was conducted focusing on the management of state-owned hybrid properties in Seongbukgu, Seoul. As a result of the study, basic directions and prior tasks were presented for efficient utilization, such as rearranging publicly owned hybrid properties, specialization and computerization of property management, and strengthening the expertise of those in charge of management tasks. In the course of the research, a survey form for the state public land was prepared, and the problems and actual conditions of the management of the public land were widely presented through field surveys and resident surveys.
In addition to these studies, a number of studies discuss the problem of management of public property and rationalization of management, but in-depth research on specific alternatives, detailed implementation plans for active utilization, and related system problems is not supported. has been brought up in For example, many studies have only suggested the improvement direction at the basic level of enhancing the expertise of the local government’s shared property management organization and staff, and failed to provide specific alternatives or implementation plans for enhancing professionalism. For this reason, detailed analysis and examples for practical solutions to management problems such as illegal possession of public property, imposition of compensation for it, disposition for default, and administrative proxy execution, and the use of a trust method for active utilization of unused public property Research is lacking. Moreover, from April 2009, there have been many changes in the institutional conditions for the management and utilization of common property such as the general property trust type was subdivided into sale-type, rental-type, and mixed-type, as well as the period extension, and the introduction of a system that enables consignment management and development. is in progress. Therefore, this study is clearly different from previous studies in that it is a study to review the existing problems and new institutional conditions in Chungcheongnamdo from various angles and to prepare detailed management efficiency measures.
At one time, despite a temporary increase in tax revenue due to the continued booming economy, the financial situation of local governments has not improved. Local governments should take this fact seriously. In the midst of such a global recession, the management crisis of local governments is sharply aggravated. First of all, it should be pointed out that there is a high possibility of a serious decrease in tax revenue after 2025. In the 2019 budget, each local government barely made a budget, such as toppling the fiscal adjustment fund, but after next year, it will always fall into a huge shortage of resources.
The problem is that the most difficult situation is the aging of people and things. Because the amount of such obsolescence is enormous, the local governments continue to suffer from ① debt repayment, ② operation and management costs, and ③ increase in future renewal burden. In particular, the renewal investment will be huge because the buildings maintained during the period of high economic growth will reach the useful life of the building one after another after 2010. It is also an additional economic measure of 67 trillion won in the 2020 supplementary budget. Of these, if ‘education and health projects’ are included, the actual fiscal expenditure will exceed 40 trillion won. If you look more closely, the temporary grant for regional revitalization public investment is included.
If local governments do not engage in a management model that relies on public works or change their high-cost structure, but re-enter public projects aimed at subsidizing grants, the local governments quickly return to the “road from where they came before” financially deteriorating. At that entrance, the local government is now facing.
In order to solve the problem, it is now necessary to re-evaluate the property as a local management resource. If a private company is in a business crisis, the first thing to do is to liquidate its assets to get out of it.
Like corporations, it is important to organize the boxes to slim down the financial statements for management that the government requires. Even if we continue to reduce variable costs that are easy to handle, structurally, there is nothing different from the previous management of local governments, so the battle for attrition without winning will continue. After layoffs, local governments must maintain and improve administrative services by striving to increase the value of the items left behind.
Under the administrative system of Korea, which is characterized by centralization, the state decides on legal standards and provides financial support by making it mandatory for local governments to implement projects.
This tendency became more pronounced after the bubble collapse. This is because, taking advantage of the country’s economic measures, local governments themselves were able to make goods without feeling much pain, and thereby the local economy was prospered and residents were also able to enjoy the benefits of being happy. However, even in this structure, the subsidy tax was cut due to the financial difficulties of the country, and the maintenance of the facilities was not possible. The ambiguous relationship between revenue and burden overlaps with the lack of administrative explanation, so it is not recognized as an urgent problem for residents.
In many local governments, the current budget is also determined in a vertical relationship structure, such as a compromise between the project and finance departments individually. For this reason, there is no policy discussion on the overall management of local governments about which policies to allocate the limited budget to. In addition, there are cases where the head of a group or a local council makes a political decision to undertake a large-scale project aimed at making. This means that no matter how strictly each project is evaluated under the vertical structure of the administration, it is difficult for the local government as a whole to conduct rational finances.
Even if the optimal decision-making is possible at each jurisdiction and level within the organization, it does not mean that it is the optimal decision-making for the entire local government. This is because there is a lack of policy theory from the perspective of the overall management of local governments about what to prioritize and what to postpone. Originally, the head of the local government and the staff of the local government in the planning and finance department had a role to judge the management policy of the local government as a whole, and the legislator should check this.
Unfortunately, however, the current situation is that there is a lack of talented people or organizations that have both a macro perspective for grasping the overall management of local governments and a micro perspective for analyzing and evaluating individual business management.
Public property is divided into administrative property and ordinary property. Among these, administrative property was ‘must be used for administrative purposes’, and in principle, loans or private powers could not be established. This should pave the way for effective utilization as administrative assets. This property division system of local governments follows the state.
In the state, administrative assets are managed by each ministry and ordinary assets are managed by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance. On the other hand, in a local government, the head of the group manages both administrative and ordinary property, but as long as the head of the group is imitating the state to distinguish between the administrative property and the common property, the head of the group cannot be effectively utilized.
Therefore, the state should reform the legal system, which is the origin of the division of public property, that is, the distinction between administrative property and ordinary property. This is a symbolic effort that shows our sincerity in reforming national assets and debt.
In addition to the harmful effects of systematic administration, each department will actively promote the movement of local governments to use the system actively and efficiently. It can also encourage private companies to enter the public sector market more. Changes in the property division system are expected to affect subsidies as well. This is because many administrative properties managed by local governments are maintained with subsidies from the state.
If the property division system is abolished and the shackles of administrative property are removed, local governments will be forced to investigate how to operate and manage objects that emphasize cost and performance. The local government proceeds with the conversion from administrative property to ordinary property. Even if the above goal is not achieved, local governments should seek to utilize the legislative purpose or expedite the normal redevelopment of administrative assets.
Liquidity of assets, such as sales and transfers, should be increased and the participation of private operators should be promoted. This division change can be done by the authority of the group leader, and it does not require much time or procedure to change the division. When the restrictions on administrative property are removed, competition for ideas of effective utilization through the designated manager system or PFI will begin, and the best way to use the item will be further considered. In addition, the designation management system that accompanies it will be reorganized, and new possibilities of effective use will arise.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 ······························································································ 1
• 1. 연구배경 및 목적 ········································································· 1
• 2. 연구방법과 범위 및 선행연구와의 차별성 ····································· 3
• 가. 연구방법과 절차 ···································································· 3
• 나. 선행연구와의 차별성 ····························································· 5
• 제2장 공유재산관리 관련 법제의 고찰 ························································ 11
• 1. 공유재산 일반 ············································································· 11
• 가. 공유재산 개념 ······································································· 11
• 나. 공유재산의 구분과 종류 ························································· 14
• 다. 공유재산의 특성 ···································································· 15
• 2. 공유재산 관리 ············································································· 16
• 가. 부동산관리의 개념 ································································· 16
• 나. 부동산관리의 필요성 ····························································· 17
• 3. 공유재산관리 정책변동 ································································ 17
• 가. 매각처분 중심관리(1945년∼1976년) ····································· 18
• 나. 유지·보존 중심관리(1977년∼1993년) ···································· 18
• 다. 활용 및 보전 중심관리 ·························································· 18
• 라. 활용도 제고 및 효율적 관리(2000년 이후) ···························· 19
• 4. 공유재산 관리체계 ······································································· 20
• 가. 공유재산 관리 관련법률 ························································· 20
• 나. 공유재산 관리체계와 업무 ····················································· 23
• 다. 공유재산 실태조사 ································································· 24
• 제3장 공유재산의 관리운영 방법 ································································ 25
• 1. 공유재산관리계획 수립 ································································ 25
• 가. 공유재산 관리계획의 정의와 법적성질 ···································· 25
• 나. 공유재산 관리계획 수립의 범위 ············································· 25
• 다. 관리계획 작성방법 ································································· 26
• 1) 관리계획 수립 ································································· 26
• 2) 관리계획 변경수립 ··························································· 27
• 2. 공유재산 관리계획 수립절차 ························································ 28
• 3. 공유재산심의회 ············································································ 29
• 4. 공유재산 취득 ············································································· 30
• 5. 공유재산관리 ··············································································· 30
• 가. 사용수익허가 ········································································· 30
• 나. 대부 ······················································································ 31
• 다. 허가·계약방법 ········································································ 32
• 1) 일반입찰 ·········································································· 32
• 2) 지명경쟁 ·········································································· 33
• 3) 수의계약 ·········································································· 33
• 라. 사용·수익허가 / 대부 기간 ····················································· 37
• 1) 행정재산 사용·수익허가 기간 ··········································· 37
• 2) 사용·수익허가 및 대부계약의 갱신 ··································· 38
• 3) 사용료 및 대부료 ····························································· 39
• 마. 행정재산의 관리위탁 ····························································· 44
• 바. 일반재산의 신탁관리 ····························································· 49
• 사. 일반재산의 위탁관리 ····························································· 50
• 아. 일반재산의 위탁개발 ····························································· 53
• 6. 공유재산의 처분 ·········································································· 64
• 가. 행정재산처분 ········································································· 64
• 나. 일반재산처분 ········································································· 66
• 다. 교환 ······················································································ 74
• 라. 양여 ······················································································ 77
• 제4장 천안시 공유재산 관리현황 ································································ 81
• 1. 천안시 공유재산 관리체계 현황 ··················································· 81
• 가. 공유재산 관리 조례 ······························································· 81
• 나. 공유재산심의회 ······································································ 81
• 2. 천안시 공유재산 현황 ·································································· 82
• 가. 연도별 공유재산 토지취득 현황 ············································· 83
• 나. 연도별 공유재산 토지취득금액 현황 ······································· 84
• 다. 공유재산(토지) 용도별 공유재산 토지현황 ····························· 85
• 라. 공유재산(토지) 용도별 취득금액 현황 ···································· 87
• 마. 공유재산(토지) 용도별 대부가능면적 현황 ····························· 88
• 바. 공유재산(토지) 용도별 대부가능 취득금액 현황 ····················· 89
• 사. 연도별 공유재산(건물) 취득 현황 ·········································· 91
• 아. 연도별 공유재산(용익물권) 취득금액 현황 ····························· 91
• 자. 연도별 공유재산(공작물) 취득금액 현황 ································ 92
• 차. 연도별 공유재산(기계가구) 취득금액 현황 ····························· 93
• 카. 연도별 공유재산(입목죽) 취득금액 현황 ································ 94
• 타. 연도별 공유재산(기타) 취득금액 현황 ···································· 94
• 3. 천안시 공유재산 임대수익 현황 ··················································· 95
• 제5장 공유재산관리의 문제점 및 효율화 방안 ············································ 97
• 1. 일반재산 활용 저조 ····································································· 97
• 가. 낮은 활용가치와 저조한 대부 실적 ········································ 97
• 나. 대부료 산정방식의 경직성 ····················································· 99
• 2. 공유재산 실태조사 미흡 및 취약한 관리 인프라 ··························· 102
• 가. 부정확한 공부 자료와 소극적 실태조사 ·································· 102
• 나. 지적측량과 연계된 실태조사 어려움 ······································· 103
• 다. 공유재산관리 중심의 전산화 미흡 ·········································· 105
• 3. 업무특성과 연계된 인적요인 ························································ 107
• 가. 복잡다기한 업무 ···································································· 107
• 나. 취약한 전담조직 규모 ···························································· 108
• 다. 전문적 직무교육의 부재 ························································· 109
• 라. 주민면식 등에 의한 대민업무 어려움 ····································· 111
• 4. 의사결정기구와 관련한 문제점 ····················································· 112
• 가. 공유재산심의회의 실질 기능 미흡 ············································ 113
• 나. 업무 외 요인에 의한 의사결정 지연 ········································ 114
• 5. 공유재산관리 효율화 방안으로서 활용도 낮은 재산 매각추진 ········ 116
• 6. 공유재산관리 기본 인프라 정비와 구축 ········································ 116
• 가. 실질적 실태조사체계 확립 ····················································· 116
• 나. 효율적인 공유재산관리 정보시스템 운용 ································ 117
• 7. 토지 대부료 산정방식 개선 ·························································· 119
• 8. 위탁·신탁을 활용을 통한 공유재산 관리 효율화 ···························· 121
• 가. 위탁·신탁 활용을 위한 기본방향 설정 ···································· 121
• 나. 공유재산관리 수탁기관 전문화 ··············································· 122
• 다. 업무특성을 고려한 위탁·신탁방식 검토와 활용 ······················· 124
• 9. 인력 및 조직 전문성 강화 ···························································· 128
• 가. 전문 인력 및 전담인력의 확보 ··············································· 128
• 나. 공유재산관리 전문교육연수 확대 ············································ 129
• 다. 사이버(cyber) 교육연수 개발 ················································ 129
• 라. 교육수요에 기반한 실무교육 프로그램 개발 ··························· 132
• 제6장 결 론 ······························································································ 135
• 1. 연구요약 및 정책적 제언 ····························································· 135
• 2. 연구의 한계 및 향후 과제 ···························································· 137
• 참고문헌 ································································································ 139
• 영문초록 ································································································ 143

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. 공유재산업무편람, 행정자치부, , 2020

2. 2007 행정자치백서, p.161, 행정자치부, , 2007

3. 공유재산 관리제도 개선, 조임곤, 한국지방재정학회, 세미나자료집, 한국지방재정 학회 2019년 동계학술대회 발표논문집, (2019.12), 371-400면, , 2019

4. “토지의 적산임료 평가,”, 이재우, 감정평가 통권 제55호, p.58, , 2003

5. 국 공유토지 관리의 합리화 방안, 장희순, 한국감정평가학회, 감정평가학논 집 제2호, pp.6790, , 2003

6. 공유재산제도개선 워크숍 교육자료, 행정안전부, , 2018

7. “국유재산법상 행정재산의 성립요건,”, 李賢修, 행정법이론실무학회 行政法硏究 第 23號, (2009.4), 233-252면, , 2009

8. “행정대집행제도의 문제점 및 개선방안,”, 박효근, 한양법학회 한양법학 30(2), (2019.5), 1-26면., , 2019

9. 국유부동산의 효율적 관리를 위한 제도개선, 재정경제부, , 2000

10. “효율적인 공유재산관리시스템 구축 방안,”, 최원산, 박정수, 한국지방정부학회 한국 지방정부학회 학술대회자료집 (2019.2), 957-968면, , 2019

11. “공공부문 보유부동산 활용도 제고방안 연구”, 박헌주, 국토개발연구원, p.22, , 1999

12. ․“국 공유재산 관리체계의 효율화 방안 연구,”, 감사원, 재정경제부, pp.5863, , 2004

13. “국유지 관리 거버넌스 구축 방안에 관한 연구,”, 박경돈, 한국국토정보공사 지적과 국토정보 41(2), (2011), 225-239면, , 2011

14. “지적현황측량에 의한 국공유지의 관리실태 분석,”, 방종식, 서울시립대 석사 학위논문, p.37, , 2006

15. “지방재정의 건전성과 공유재산 관리의 정책적 의미,”, 류춘호, 한국지방정부학회 한국지방정부학회 학술대회자료집, (2010.8), 243-271면., , 2010

16. “행정대집행, 변상금부과 처분과 이에 대한 구제수단,”, 고시계, 고시계사 고시계 65(7), (2020.6), 71-73면, , 2020

17. “지방자치단체 공유재산관리의 영향요인에 관한 연구,”, 안종욱, 건국대학교 박사학위논문, p.74, , 2006

18. “국유지관리 개선방안 연구 : 국유잡종재산을 중심으로,”, 성업공사, pp.2527, , 1996

19. “도시재생구역 내 국유지 효율적 활용 위한 법제도 개선 방안,”, 양지혜, 장준영, 민승현, 서울연구원 정책리포트, (2019.2), 1-27면., , 2019

20. “지방정부 공유재산의 효율적 관리방안: 경북 사례를 중심으로,”, 강황묵, 남창우, 한국공공관리학회 한국공공관리학보 33(4), (2019.12), 27-58면., , 2019

21. “국유토지 권리보전에 관한연구 : 일본인 명의 토지를 중심으로,”, 이영재, 한국지적정보학회지 제15권 제2호, pp.221239, , 2013

22. “지방자치단체 국공유지 관리 실태와 관리방안 - 장수군을 중심으로, 주상현, 한국자치행정학회 한국자치행정학보 26(1), (2012), 193-218면, , 2012

23. “지적공부관리시스템을 이용한 효율적인 국공유부동산 관리방안,”, 송근필, 한성대학교 석사학위논문, pp.8081, , 2007

24. “국유잡종재산의 효율적 활용을 위한 관리제도의 개선방안에 관한 연구,”, 윤준선, 한국부동산학회, 부동산학보 제27집, pp.1836, , 2006

25. “우리나라 국유재산관리 정책의제설정에 관한 연구: 해외사례분석을 중심 으로,”, 김상봉, 한국도시행정학회 도시행정학보 34(2), (2021.6), 119-152면, , 2021

26. “지방정부 공유재산의 효율적 관리방안에 관한 연구: 경기도 잡종재 산을 중심으로,”, 정헌영, 노시평, 한국정책과학학회 한국정책과학학회보 7(3), (2003.12), 270–291면, , 2003

27. “지방재정 확충을 위한 효율적 시유재산 확보방안: ‘시유재산 찾기 사업’을 중심으로,”, 김선주, 권기욱, 한국지적정보학회 한국지적정보학회지 20(2), (2018.8), 99-109면, , 2018

28. “신거버넌스로서 민-관 협력 그리고 민간투자에 관한 연구 : 공공서비스 확충을 위한 민간투자방식의 레짐이동을 중심으로,”, 유영철, 한국정부학회 한국행정 논집 20(1), (2008.3), 21-47면., , 2008