도시정비사업 시행에 따른 신탁방식 활성화 방안 연구 : 조합방식에서 신탁방식으로 변경된 정비사업 중심으로 = A Study on the Revitalization of Trust : based Urban Improvement Project

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

During the industrialisation, urbanisation period, Korea indiscriminately provided housing regardless of aesthetical exterior or maintenance infrastructure in the process of supplying the city’s insufficient housing. The redevelopment and reconstruction project, an urban readjustment project, was actively carried out in order to improve the housing supply efficiently, but conflicts and legal disputes between the developer and residents had been arisen due to rights and interests. As a result, it has emerged as a social problem. Therefore, the government has realised the necessity of systematic management. The Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act was enacted and implemented from July. 2003. Even till now, the law is being revised and supplemented to make up for its deficiencies. Nevertheless, the problem of the maintenance project, which has not been improved, is the social problem of areas where project progress has not been made due to the lack of professionalism of the cooperative, conflicts of union membership, corruption of the subcontractor, limitations of project financing, transparency of the cooperative, etc. and the inability of the construction company to select constructors due to poor business feasibility or poor management. In order to cope with these critical points, the Real Estate Trust system has been in effect since Mar. 02, 2012 and drawing attention. As an alternative to overcoming these limitations, the trust system, which has been in effect since March 02, 2016. As the trust system was receiving attention. The trust system has come to investigate how it affects redevelopment projects by breaking from the standardised union system among implementation forms of urban redevelopment project. As of Dec, 2018, 56 companies were selected as trustees nationwide, 21 were double project implementers, and 35 were business agent system, according to the survey. It has been found that 12 out of 21 project implementer-type facilities have yet to be signed. According to the analysis of cases of reconstruction projects in Seoul's D Redevelopment Zone and Incheon Y Apartment, which are carrying forward the project by switching from the cooperative form to the trust form among the project execution systems. In order to re-establish the builder for the project, bidding was held for re-election, but was continued to be auctioned off. Since then, the trust company was designated as an agent and the builder was selected to proceed with the project. The advantage of designation as an agency by a trust company has significantly reduced the suspension of payment of the union's business expenses, raising the possibility of completion of the project. In addition, the payment of construction costs based on the construction establishment rate was able to drastically lower construction costs, and lower construction costs, which account for a high proportion of the cost of union spending, thus boosting the union's business feasibility. On the contrary to this, borrowing interest on trustees and project costs was found to be incurred. This study conducted empirical analysis on people who understood the overall procedures and related laws of project promotion related to urban readjustment projects. As a result, the survey found the reason of impeding business growth that 68.8 percent of lack of professionalism in the executive department, 91.8 percent of conflict among union members, 77.9 percent of lack of business feasibility in the zones, 63.3 percent of corruption in business partners, and 50.5 percent of trouble in transparency of the union. In addition, it turned out that the diversification of implementation (Trust form) was the most preferred as a solution. Also, regarding the efficiency of project implementation, the trust form was more efficient than the cooperative form. Especially in case of solving business suspension issues, 56.9 percent agreed to trust form. Moreover, 64.2 percent responded positively towards improving business performance and possibility of completion of business, when the business has been carried forward with trust form also, the research has discovered the perception of obstruction of trust form operation as 77 percent of high borrowing rate, 72.5 percent of trust fee, 56 percent of the date of registration of a trust, 46.8 percent of taxable subject In sequence. A survey has shown that in order to reduce the borrowing interest, the city guarantee cooperation changed the guarantee date to the selection of a trust company after establishing a cooperation, and in terms of the date of registration of a trust, it should be changed by selecting a trust company with the general assembly’s approval and registering it after the approval of project, and in relation to taxable subject, it must be changed to a union or member of the union. In addition, it was analysed that the government recognized the need for public support, such as encouraging Trust-based and subsidizing trust fees, in areas with weak business feasibility by distinguishing the business feasibility of urban readjustment projects. Looking at the results of the empirical investigation, I hope that the public will actively support and improve the system to activate the trust system.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

우리나라는 산업화 도시화를 거치면서 도시의 부족한 주택을 공급하는 과정에서 도시의 미관이나 정비기반시설을 배제하고 무분별하게 주택공급이 이루어졌다. 이렇게 비효율적으로 공급된 주택을 효율적으로 개량하고자 도시정비사업인 재개발 재 건축사업이 활발하게 추진되었으나, 개발업자 등의 이권으로 개발주민들 간 갈등과 법적 다툼이 빈번하게 발생하여 사회적인문제가 되었다. 이에 정부는 체계적 관리의 필요성을 느끼고 문제를 개선하기 위해 도시 및 주거환경정비법을 제정하여 2003년 7월부터 시행하게 되었으며, 현재 까지도 법 개정과 보완을 통해 미흡한 부분을 보완하고 있다.
그럼에도 불구하고 개선되지 않고 있는 정비사업의 문제점으로 조합의 전문성 부족, 조합원 갈등, 협력업체의 비리, 사업비 조달의 한계, 조합운영의 투명성 등과 사업이 진척되었음에도 불구하고 사업성이 취약하여 시공자를 선정하지 못하거나 시공자를 선정 하였음에도 시공자의 경영악화로 사업 진척이 없는 구역들이 사회문 제가 되고 있는 현실이다. 이러한 한계를 극복할 수 있는 대안으로 2016년 3월 2일 부터 시행되고 있는 신탁방식이 주목받고 있어, 도시정비사업의 시행방식 중 획일적인 조합방식에서 탈피하여 신탁방식이 재개발 재건축 사업에 어떤 영향을 미치는지 조사하게 되었다.
2018년 12월 기준으로 도시정비사업 중 신탁방식 추진현황을 조사한 결과 전국적으로 56개소가 신탁방식으로 선정되었고, 이중 사업시행자방식이 21개소, 사업대행 자방식이 35개소로 조사되었다. 사업시행자방식 21개소 중 12개소가 계약이 미체결 된 것으로 조사되었다.
사업시행방식 중 조합방식에서 신탁방식으로 사업방식을 전환하여 사업을 추진하 고 있는 서울 D재개발구역과 인천 Y아파트 재건축사업의 사례를 분석한 결과 시공자를 선정하였으나 회사의 경영악화 등의 사유로 조합의 사업비용을 지원하지 않아 사업이 중단 되었고, 사업진행을 위해 시공자를 재선정하고자 입찰을 진행하였으나 계속 유찰되었으며, 이후 신탁회사를 대행자로 지정하고 시공자를 선정하여 사업을 추진하고 있었다. 신탁회사의 대행자지정 장점으로 조합의 사업비용 지급중단이 현 저히 낮아져 사업완료 가능성이 높아졌다. 또한 공사 기성률에 따른 공사비 지급으 로 공사비용을 대폭 낮출 수 있었으며, 조합 지출비용 중 높은 비중을 차지하는 공 사비를 낮춰 조합의 사업성을 올릴 수 있었다. 부작용으로 신탁보수 수수료 및 사업 비용에 대한 차입이자가 발생 되는 것으로 조사되었다.
본 연구는 도시정비사업과 관련하여 사업추진의 전반적인 절차와 관련법을 이해 하고 있는 실무자 대상으로 실증분석을 실시하였다. 그 결과 첫째, ‘조합집행부의 전 문성부족’ 68.8%, ‘조합원간 갈등’ 91.8%, ‘구역의 사업성 부재’ 77.9%, ‘협력업체 비 리’ 63.3%, ‘조합의 투명성 문제’ 50.5%가 사업의 저해요인으로 조사되었고, 해결 방 안으로 시행방식 다양화(신탁방식)를 가장 선호한 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 사업추진 효율성에 대하여 조합방식에 비해 신탁방식이 효율적이라 답하였다. 특히 ‘사업 중 단 문제 해소’의 경우 56.9%가 신탁방식이라고 답하여 높게 나타났으며, ‘신탁방식 으로 사업을 추진할 경우 사업성 향상과 사업완료 가능성’에 대하여 64.2%가 긍정 적 반응을 나타났다. 그러나 신탁방식 운영 저해요인에 대한 인식은 높은 차입이자 77%, 신탁보수 수수료 72.5%, 신탁등기 시점 56%, 납세의무자의 변경46.8% 순으로 조사되었다. 셋째, 차입이자의 경감 방안으로는 ‘주택도시보증공사의 보증시점을 조 합설립 후 신탁회사 선정’으로 변경하고, ‘신탁등기 시점’은 총회 의결로 신탁회사를 선정하고, 사업시행인가 이후 신탁등기 하는 방법으로 변경하고, ‘납세의무자’와 관 련해서는 조합이나 조합원으로 변경하여야 한다고 조사되었다. 넷째 도시정비사업의 사업성을 구분하여 사업성이 취약한 구역의 경우 신탁방식을 장려하고 신탁 수수료 를 보조해주는 등 공공의 지원의 필요성에 공감하였다. 실증조사 결과를 미루어 볼 때 공공의 적극적인 지원과 제도 개선으로 신탁방식 활성화가 이루어지기를 바란다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 ····································································································1
• 제1절 연구의 배경 및 목적·······················································································1
• 1. 연구의 배경········································································································1
• 2. 연구의 목적········································································································2
• 제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법·······················································································3
• 1. 연구의 범위········································································································3
• 2. 연구의 방법과 구성···························································································4
• 제2장 도시정비사업에 대한 이론적 고찰 ···················································6
• 제1절 도시정비사업의 정의 및 유형········································································6
• 1. 도시정비사업의 정의·························································································6
• 2. 도시정비사업의 배경·························································································7
• 3. 도시정비사업의 유형·························································································7
• 제2절 도시정비사업의 법적근거 및 연혁·································································9
• 1. 도시정비사업의 법적근거··················································································9
• 2. 도시정비사업의 연혁························································································10
• 제3절 도시정비사업 개발방식·················································································13
• 1. 조합방식···········································································································13
• 2. 신탁방식···········································································································19
• 제4절 선행연구 고찰································································································25
• 1. 도시정비사업에 관한 선행연구·······································································25
• 2. 도시정비사업 시행방식에 관한 선행연구 ·····················································29
• 3. 선행연구와의 차별성························································································30
• 제3장 도시정비사업의 시행방식별 추진현황 및 사업방식변경 사례분석 32
• 제1절 도시정비사업의 시행방식에 따른 추진현황·················································32
• 1. 도시정비사업의 조합방식 추진현황································································32
• 2. 도시정비사업의 신탁방식 추진현황································································37
• 제2절 도시정비사업의 사업방식변경 사례분석······················································39
• 1. 서울 D구역 재개발 사례분석··········································································39
• 2. 인천 Y아파트 재건축 사례분석·······································································43
• 3. 시사점···············································································································47
• 제4장 조합방식과 신탁방식적용에 따른 실증분석 ···································50
• 제1절 실증분석의 개요····························································································50
• 1. 설문조사의 목적·······························································································50 2.
• 설문조사 구성과 분석방법···············································································50
• 제2절 설문조사에 따른 실증분석············································································52
• 1. 조사대상자의 일반적 특성···············································································52
• 2. 도시정비사업 저해요인 및 해소 방안에 대한 인식·······································54
• 3. 시행방식에 따른 사업추진 효율성 차이 인식················································60
• 4. 신탁방식 시행 저해요인과 활성화 방안에 대한 인식···································64
• 5. 실증분석 결과··································································································75
• 제3절 신탁방식 활성화 방안···················································································77
• 1. 제도적 개선 방안·····························································································77
• 2. 공공의 지원 방안·····························································································79
• 제5장 결론 ··································································································82
• 1. 연구의 요약······································································································82
• 2. 향후 과제··········································································································83
• 참고문헌····················································································································85
• 부 록····················································································································87
• Abstract ····················································································································93