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

    지적재조사사업 조정금 산정제도의 개선방안 - 지적소관청 공무원과 감정평가사 인식비교를 중심으로 -

    한글로보기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    The purpose of this study is to objectively derive the importance of system improvement factors to be considered in the operation of the adjustment calculation system by grasping the perceptions of the two groups of experts who calculate adjustments. The space range was for the entire country, including the metropolitan area, Chungcheong area, Jeolla area, Gyeongsang area, and Gangwon area. The time range is limited to 2022. The subjects of the analysis study were public officials and appraisers who were the subjects of calculating the adjustment amount. For analysis, AHP, a multidimensional decision-making method, was applied, and the relative importance of each system improvement factor was identified for each group. The results of the study are as follows. Group 1 and Group 2 of experts commonly recognized the importance of detailed indicators of appraisal, appraisal principles, and criteria after boundary determination in the top nine indicators considering the complex weighted average. However, the expert group 1 and the expert group 2 showed differences in detailed first-stage indicators, second-stage indicators, and third-stage indicators, confirming a large difference in perception of important issues. This study suggests that overall institutional regulations such as procedural rationality of evaluating intellectual reinvestigation adjustment funds and appraisal standards need to be systematized and clarified for administrative procedures, residents satisfaction, civil complaints, and appropriate appraisal. However, despite the expert groups perception survey, a sufficient survey was not conducted based on the status survey to derive the system improvement plan, and there is a limit to the study that an alternative to system improvement could not be derived through close legal review and comparative analysis.
    번역하기

    The purpose of this study is to objectively derive the importance of system improvement factors to be considered in the operation of the adjustment calculation system by grasping the perceptions of the two groups of experts who calculate adjustments. ...

    The purpose of this study is to objectively derive the importance of system improvement factors to be considered in the operation of the adjustment calculation system by grasping the perceptions of the two groups of experts who calculate adjustments. The space range was for the entire country, including the metropolitan area, Chungcheong area, Jeolla area, Gyeongsang area, and Gangwon area. The time range is limited to 2022. The subjects of the analysis study were public officials and appraisers who were the subjects of calculating the adjustment amount. For analysis, AHP, a multidimensional decision-making method, was applied, and the relative importance of each system improvement factor was identified for each group. The results of the study are as follows. Group 1 and Group 2 of experts commonly recognized the importance of detailed indicators of appraisal, appraisal principles, and criteria after boundary determination in the top nine indicators considering the complex weighted average. However, the expert group 1 and the expert group 2 showed differences in detailed first-stage indicators, second-stage indicators, and third-stage indicators, confirming a large difference in perception of important issues. This study suggests that overall institutional regulations such as procedural rationality of evaluating intellectual reinvestigation adjustment funds and appraisal standards need to be systematized and clarified for administrative procedures, residents satisfaction, civil complaints, and appropriate appraisal. However, despite the expert groups perception survey, a sufficient survey was not conducted based on the status survey to derive the system improvement plan, and there is a limit to the study that an alternative to system improvement could not be derived through close legal review and comparative analysis.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • Abstract
    • 1. 서론
    • 2. 제도 및 선행연구 고찰
    • 3. 연구 방법 및 설계
    • 4. AHP를 이용한 제도개선 우선순위 분석
    • Abstract
    • 1. 서론
    • 2. 제도 및 선행연구 고찰
    • 3. 연구 방법 및 설계
    • 4. AHP를 이용한 제도개선 우선순위 분석
    • 5. 결론
    • 참고문헌
    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

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼