RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    정당한 보상을 위한 개발이익 배제에 관한 비판적 고찰

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A105406883

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    The Constitution guarantees property rights of the people in Article 23. And while allowing the right to accept property according to the public s needs, compensation for it should be made by law, but only fair compensation should be made. It is natural that acceptance of property rights under the pretext of public necessity should give
    legitimate compensation for the deprivation of property rights, as it is not voluntary with the landowners.
    It is natural that acceptance of property rights under the pretext of public necessity should give legitimate compensation for the deprivation of property rights, as it is not voluntary with the landowners. For this purpose, the law stipulates the principle of compensation in calculating the compensation amount, and one of its principles is the
    principle of excluding development benefits. In addition, the law has several provisions to exclude the benefits of development.
    In addition, in the case of case precedent and academic circles, the development benefits created by the increase in the value of land due to the implementation of public projects are those of the characteristics that should ultimately be attributable to all people. Under these logic to exclude the benefit from development from the public interest, development benefits, including the amount of land price increase, can not be compensated from fair compensation, and are infringing upon the compensation made by the landowners. This phenomenon is likely to be unconstitutional about the fair compensation prescribed in the Constitution, and it poses a number of problems. While the
    principle of excluding the development benefits from compensation for loss is maintained in theory and precedent, is it legitimate compensation to exclude the benefits from development based on the principle of fair compensation under the Constitution?
    번역하기

    The Constitution guarantees property rights of the people in Article 23. And while allowing the right to accept property according to the public s needs, compensation for it should be made by law, but only fair compensation should be made. It is natur...

    The Constitution guarantees property rights of the people in Article 23. And while allowing the right to accept property according to the public s needs, compensation for it should be made by law, but only fair compensation should be made. It is natural that acceptance of property rights under the pretext of public necessity should give
    legitimate compensation for the deprivation of property rights, as it is not voluntary with the landowners.
    It is natural that acceptance of property rights under the pretext of public necessity should give legitimate compensation for the deprivation of property rights, as it is not voluntary with the landowners. For this purpose, the law stipulates the principle of compensation in calculating the compensation amount, and one of its principles is the
    principle of excluding development benefits. In addition, the law has several provisions to exclude the benefits of development.
    In addition, in the case of case precedent and academic circles, the development benefits created by the increase in the value of land due to the implementation of public projects are those of the characteristics that should ultimately be attributable to all people. Under these logic to exclude the benefit from development from the public interest, development benefits, including the amount of land price increase, can not be compensated from fair compensation, and are infringing upon the compensation made by the landowners. This phenomenon is likely to be unconstitutional about the fair compensation prescribed in the Constitution, and it poses a number of problems. While the
    principle of excluding the development benefits from compensation for loss is maintained in theory and precedent, is it legitimate compensation to exclude the benefits from development based on the principle of fair compensation under the Constitution?

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 김철수, "헌법학신론" 박영사 687-690, 2014

    2 성낙인, "헌법학" 법문사 685-686, 2014

    3 선병채, "토지보상평가에 있어 개발이익 배제" 139-, 2008

    4 류해웅, "토지보상에 있어서 개발이익 배제에 관한 법제적 고찰" 한국부동산연구원 17 (17): 115-136, 2007

    5 김영조, "토지보상액산정에 있어서 개발이익배제의 원칙에 관한 검토" 9 : 243-,

    6 류하백, "정당보상에 있어 개발이익배제논리의 위헌성에 관한 고찰" 한국부동산연구원 18 (18): 125-152, 2008

    7 김승종, "영국의 개발이익 환수제도에 관한 연구"

    8 김유향, "기본강의 헌법" (주) 월비스 649-, 2018

    9 전극수, "공익사업에서의 영업손실보상에 관한 연구" 한국토지공법학회 81 : 23-43, 2018

    10 박평준, "공용수용에 대한 손실보상" 51-, 2004

    1 김철수, "헌법학신론" 박영사 687-690, 2014

    2 성낙인, "헌법학" 법문사 685-686, 2014

    3 선병채, "토지보상평가에 있어 개발이익 배제" 139-, 2008

    4 류해웅, "토지보상에 있어서 개발이익 배제에 관한 법제적 고찰" 한국부동산연구원 17 (17): 115-136, 2007

    5 김영조, "토지보상액산정에 있어서 개발이익배제의 원칙에 관한 검토" 9 : 243-,

    6 류하백, "정당보상에 있어 개발이익배제논리의 위헌성에 관한 고찰" 한국부동산연구원 18 (18): 125-152, 2008

    7 김승종, "영국의 개발이익 환수제도에 관한 연구"

    8 김유향, "기본강의 헌법" (주) 월비스 649-, 2018

    9 전극수, "공익사업에서의 영업손실보상에 관한 연구" 한국토지공법학회 81 : 23-43, 2018

    10 박평준, "공용수용에 대한 손실보상" 51-, 2004

    11 박성규, "공용수용(公用收用)의 정당보상에 관한 연구" 한국전문경영인학회 10 (10): 107-127, 2007

    12 임윤수, "개발이익환수제도에 관한 연구" 한국법학회 (21) : 1-20, 2006

    13 조병구, "개발이익 배제 원칙에 대한 소고" 한국법경제학회 9 (9): 193-222, 2012

    14 小高 剛, "用地買收と補償" 有斐閣 99-, 2003

    15 Wyman, Miriam Katrina, "The Measure of Just Compensation" 41 : 239-287, 2007

    16 Macpherson, "The Life and Times of Liberal Dmocracy" Oxford University, press 9-10, 1977

    17 Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer, "Land Use Planning and Control Law" West Group 64-, 1988

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2024 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2021-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2019-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    2018-12-01 등재 등재후보 탈락 (계속평가)
    2016-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 0 0 0
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0 0 0 0.29
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼