토양환경법제의 최근 동향과 쟁점

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Korea's Soil Environment Conservation Act (“SECA”) has been amended several times, since it entered into force on January 1, 1998. At this time, I try to analyze the legal trend and issues in the field of soil environment. To put it concretely, I presents a brief overview of the history of the legal systems to conserve the soil environment, and current SECA. Then, I analyze the legal trend, issues and future challenges surrounding SECA, focused on the SECA bill, introduced by the Government and pending in National Assembly.
SECA identifies “polluters” as (ⅰ) parties who have induced soil contamination by leaking, releasing, dumping or abandoning the substance of soil contamination, (ⅱ) parties who own, possess, or operate the facilities that trigger soil contamination, which originally caused soil contamination, (ⅲ) parties who have taken over the facilities causing soil contamination through merger, inheritance, or other reasons; and finally (ⅳ) persons who have taken over the “facilities that trigger soil contamination” on account of several acts. In addition, SECA holds “polluters” responsible for clean-up of the contaminated site. In particular, the provision that “polluters” include parties who have induced soil contamination creates the risk that SECA's liability will become “everyone's liability.”
As the site investigation techniques to assess contamination are gradu-ally developed, there are gradually increasing numbers of cases that the seriously contaminated sites are detected, and many interested parties, including the site-owners, are enforced to clean up the contaminated sites under SECA. And that is resulting in the legal battles between the (past or present) site-owner and the competent authority, or between the past site-owner and the present site-owner.
The bill pending in National Assembly includes (ⅰ) the estimation of topsoil erosion, (ⅱ) the Minister of Environment's clean-up of the government-owned sites, (ⅲ) exempting the one who trusted the result of an assessment of soil environment from responsibility to clean-up, (ⅳ) the establishment of a mutual aid association of sites clean-up, (ⅴ) the enhancement of risk assessment, (ⅵ) the designation of soil environment management complex, and (ⅶ) the expansion of residents support measures. Though SECA has been developed and will be develop further, it is difficult to say that Korea is free from the problems of soil contamination and that Korea is absolutely free from the problems of brownfields. It is necessary to pay continuous attention to the legal efforts to resolve the trade-off between environmental protection and economic development.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 들어가며
• Ⅱ. 토양환경법제의 역사
• Ⅲ. 현행 토양환경보전법의 기본체계
• Ⅳ. 최근의 동향 및 주요 쟁점
• Ⅴ. 나오며
• 참고문헌
• 〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김홍균, "환경법: 문제․사례" 홍문사 2007

2 조현권, "환경법" 법률문화원 2006

3 홍준형, "환경법" 박영사 2001

4 김홍균, "환경법" 홍문사 2010

5 김홍균, "해양오염퇴적물의 법적 지위와 관리방안" 한국법학원 (115) : 237-266, 2010

6 채영근, "토양환경보전법의 실효성 확보를 위한 과제와 토양환경평가" 한국비교공법학회 9 (9): 366-394, 2008

7 김명용, "토양환경보전법의 비교법적 분석: 독일의 연방토양보호법을 중심으로" 24 (24): 2002

8 김홍균, "토양환경보전법 책임체계의 새로운 방향: 브라운필드(Brownfields) 문제" 한국법학원 (110) : 254-279, 2009

9 송동수, "토양오염과 공법상 정화책임: 토양환경보전법의 개정을 중심으로" 14 : 2001

10 김남진, "자치단체장의 국가에 대한 정화조치명령: 행정법원 2007. 1. 31. 선고 2006구합21504 판결" 13 (13): 2007

11 채영근, "우리나라 토양환경보전법과 그 개정안의 내용과 문제점: 미국의 CERCLA와 비교하며" 29 (29): 2001

12 채영근, "오염원인자부담원칙의 적용상의 어려움: CERCLA상의 정화책임을 중심으로" 23 (23): 2001

13 蔡永根, "오염된 토양의 정화책임" 한국공법학회 30 (30): 15-15, 2002

14 김성배, "브라운필드법의 문제점과 그 시사점" 한국환경법학회 31 (31): 115-142, 2009

15 이상돈, "미국의 종합환경대응책임법(수퍼펀드법)에 대한 최근의 논쟁과 개정 논의" 24 : 2000

16 박종원, "미국의 브라운필드 문제와 그에 대한 법적 대응 : 브라운필드법을 중심으로" 한국환경법학회 29 (29): 227-258, 2007

17 김홍균, "미국 종합환경대응책임법(CERCLA)상의 책임당사자와 토양환경보전법상의 오염원인자" 24 (24): 2002

18 김성균, "낙후산업지역(Brownfield) 개발 관련 입법 동향 분석 및 대안의 모색" 한국환경법학회 30 (30): 83-112, 2008

19 채영근, "기업의 환경책임에 관한 법적 고찰: 한국철강부지 오염에 대한 정화책임을 중심으로" 한국환경법학회 32 (32): 109-146, 2010

20 황창식, "기업의 인수․합병과 토양오염" 대한변호사협회 2001

21 大塚直, "米国スーパファンド法の現状と我が国の土壌汚染対策法の改正への提言" 59 (59): 2008

22 大塚直, "土壌汚染に関する現代的課題" (319) : 2007

23 Andrew S. Levine, "The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001: The Benefits and the Limitations" 13 : 217-, 2002

24 Robert H. Abrams, "Superfund and the Evolution of Brownfields" 21 : 265-, 1997

25 Mark Reisch, "Superfund and the Brownfields Issue" Novinka Books 2003

26 Kelly J. Shira, "Returning Common Sense to Cleanup? The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act" 34 : 991-, 2002

27 Terry J. Tondro, "Reclaiming Brownfields to Save Greenfields: Shifting the Environmental Risks of Acquiring and Reusing Contaminated Land" 27 : 789-, 1995

28 Faith R. Dylewski, "Ohio's Brownfields Problem and Possible Solutions: What is Required for a Successful Brownfield Initiative?" 35 : 81-, 2001

29 Richard L. Revesz, "Federalism and Environmental Regulation: A Public Choice Analysis" 115 : 553-, 2001

30 Todd S. Davis, "Brownfields: A Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping Contaminated Property, Section of Environment, Energy and Resources"

31 Denise Ferkich Hoffman, "Brownfields and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control: Key Programs and Challenges" 31 : 433-, 2001

32 Joel B. Eisen, "Brownfields Policies for Sustainable Cities" 9 : 187-, 1999