전후 서울의 전재복구계획 논의와 도시계획 추진

Abstract

This study clarifies the process of discussing the post-war restoration of Seoul after the war and critically examines the nature of urban planning in the post-war restoration plan. During the two restoration processes, the Seoul Metropolitan Government consistently discussed the restoration plan as a 'preparatory theory', then decided to carry out both the restoration of the war damage and the land readjustment project at the same time in the 'Seoul Urban Planning Outline', and issued <Notice No.23 of the Ministry of Home Affairs> to this effect. A legal basis for this has been established. Afterwards, the 1st and 2nd central land readjustment districts were designated, and the land readjustment project was promoted through the land readjustment method. The Seoul Metropolitan Government predicted the promotion of city planning through forceful authority by revealing the enforcement of the land expropriation ordinance used to deprive Koreans of ownership and all rights to land as a legal basis for the implementation of national projects during the Japanese colonial period under the pretext of post-war restoration and urban planning. In a situation where human and material resources were sorely lacking and relied entirely on aid from the United States for material support, such as relief, the city planning plan for a population of 3 million was virtually nothing but a comfort and expectation for the return of refugees. The city of Seoul expected citizens to invest human resources for disaster recovery and allowed temporary return and the construction of temporary housing such as barracks. However, when the government returned to the country in earnest, it stopped the return of citizens who were “incapable of living” and placed them in “illegal” housing. A demolition order was issued and the land readjustment project was carried out. While the city of Seoul caused confusion over the policy and punishment for fostering temporary construction, it failed to come up with any clear measures other than forcible demolition of the housing problem caused by the increase in returning citizens. In addition, the unilateral promotion of the land readjustment project caused a conflict with the <Act on Disposal of Property Devolving upon the State> and failed to cope with social confusion such as replotting compensation.