간선시설 부담제도 개선방안에 관한 연구 : 택지개발사업을 중심으로 = Study on Improvement of Contribution system of Arterial Facilities Construction : Focused on Residential land development

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Residential land development system has highly contributed to housing supply. And the residential land supply as a basic governmental housing policy depends actually on the said residential land development system.
But due to long-term large residential land development has been executed and exhausted the available land (land equipped with arterial facilities including water supply, sewage and roads and also with low land price) Thus the development cost was increased by 22 times against 1980s.
Therefore, the residential land development price is not competitive and the relevant conditions for development have been aggravated. Currently the large supply of comfortable and low-priced residential land is very difficult and we cannot actually expect its realization.
Therefore, to realize the governmental housing policy, the arterial facilities installation is to be supported by local government as innovative measures for improvement of residential land development.
To achieve the said housing policy and to promote regional development, the residential land development has been promoted nationally. But the poor financial situation and passive will for installation of arterial facilities aggravates the inconvenience of regional residents.
In this context, the kinds and size of the arterial facilities for residential land development were reduced or adjusted by developer and local government or overcharged out of the standards of related law without objectivity or fairness. Therefore the improvement is to be done.
Nevertheless local government got tremendous free benefit in collecting acquisition tax, registration tax and other local tax and getting large arterial facilities by residential land development, they do not assume the charge of the cost of installation of arterial facilities or share its small amount. These cannot be justified that their current actions as a local government abandon their mission
Therefore, before arranging the residential land development, the arterial facilities construction including kinds, size and allocation of cost has been agreed sufficiently between developer and local government and the development not interfaced with arterial facilities construction plan is to be interrupted.
To harmoniously implement the local development and housing policy, the development profit arising out of residential land development shall partly be allocated to the cost of installation of arterial facilities.
In consideration of poor financial status of a certain local government in arterial facilities, the cost-circulation system as a realistic measure may be adopted. In other words, the relevant local government issues local bond to purchaser of lands and utilizes this fund for the construction of arterial facilities and after the purchasers pay the local tax with their local bonds.
What presents in this study is to contribute to construct comfortable and pleasant residential environment by providing the solution of disadvantage of purchasers of residential land development, of improving the conditions of residential land development and of improving governmental housing policy.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차
• Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
• 1. 연구의 배경 및 목적 = 1
• 2. 연구의 범위 및 방법 = 4
• Ⅱ. 관련 이론 및 기존 연구사례 = 6
• 1. 간선시설의 개념 = 6
• 가. 간선시설 = 6
• 나. 법정부담금 = 8
• 2. 비용부담 이론 = 10
• 가. 수익자 부담원칙 = 10
• 나. 원인자 부담원칙 = 11
• 다. 지불능력의 원칙 = 12
• 라. 간선시설의 외부효과 = 13
• 마. 비용부담원칙의 적용 = 15
• 3. 기존 연구사례 = 16
• 가. 부담주체 = 16
• 나. 부담기준 = 19
• Ⅲ. 국내·외 관련제도 운영현황 비교 = 20
• 1. 국내 관련제도 운영현황 = 20
• 가. 간선시설 설치종류와 규모의 결정과정 = 20
• 나. 간선시설 설치주체 및 범위 관련제도 = 21
• 다. 간선시설 설치관련 제도의 운영현황 = 22
• 2. 국외 관련제도 운영현황 = 24
• 가. 일본 = 24
• 나. 미국 = 29
• 다. 영국 = 36
• 라. 프랑스 = 38
• 3. 국내·외 관련제도 비교 = 41
• Ⅳ. 간선시설 설치비용 부담영향과 문제점 = 44
• 1. 간선시설 설치비용 부담영향 = 44
• 가. 간선시설 설치비용 부담현황 = 44
• 나. 조성원가에 미치는 영향 = 46
• 다. 주거환경의 쾌적성에 미치는 영향 = 54
• 라. 주택정책에 미치는 영향 = 57
• 2. 간선시설 설치비용 부담제도의 문제점 = 63
• 가. 형평성 결여 = 63
• 나. 지방자치단체의 간선시설 설치비용 부담미흡 = 66
• Ⅴ. 간선시설 설치비용 부과제도 개선방안 = 76
• 1. 형평성 확보방안 = 76
• 가. 개선방안 = 76
• 나. 개선효과 = 77
• 2. 지방자치단체의 간선시설 설치비용 부담방안 = 79
• 가. 개선방안 = 79
• 나. 개선효과 = 83
• Ⅵ. 결론 = 86
• 참고문헌 = 90
• ABSTRACT = 93