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

    자연공원법상 자연공원 지정 및 용도지구 지정의 법적 성격과 손실보상의 기준 - 대법원 2019. 9. 25. 선고 2019두34982 판결을 중심으로

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A109505487

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

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

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    The Supreme Court’s decision on September 25, 2019, 2019du34982, is significant in that it explicitly ruled for the first time that the legal nature of the designation of natural parks and special purpose districts designation under the Natural Parks Act is, in principle, a “general planning restriction.” Considering the legislative purpose of the Natural Parks Act and the content and system of each regulation, the legal nature of the designation of natural parks and special purpose districts can be said to be ‘general planning restrictions’. Plus, the amount of compensation for the loss of the land subject to expropriation should be assessed as it is under the restriction. I think the Supreme Court’s decision that comes to the same conclusion as above is correct.
    Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, when it comes to the compensation for losses of general planning restricted land such as the designation of natural parks and special purpose districts, it is still necessary to discuss and research on whether to exclude from the compensation as social restrictions inherent in property rights, or to include the compensation from the perspective of fair compensation under Article 23, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. Therefore, I hope this research will continue
    번역하기

    The Supreme Court’s decision on September 25, 2019, 2019du34982, is significant in that it explicitly ruled for the first time that the legal nature of the designation of natural parks and special purpose districts designation under the Natural Park...

    The Supreme Court’s decision on September 25, 2019, 2019du34982, is significant in that it explicitly ruled for the first time that the legal nature of the designation of natural parks and special purpose districts designation under the Natural Parks Act is, in principle, a “general planning restriction.” Considering the legislative purpose of the Natural Parks Act and the content and system of each regulation, the legal nature of the designation of natural parks and special purpose districts can be said to be ‘general planning restrictions’. Plus, the amount of compensation for the loss of the land subject to expropriation should be assessed as it is under the restriction. I think the Supreme Court’s decision that comes to the same conclusion as above is correct.
    Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, when it comes to the compensation for losses of general planning restricted land such as the designation of natural parks and special purpose districts, it is still necessary to discuss and research on whether to exclude from the compensation as social restrictions inherent in property rights, or to include the compensation from the perspective of fair compensation under Article 23, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. Therefore, I hope this research will continue

    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

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼