도시계획과 수용토지의 보상

Abstract

The development permission and the development unit is key function of urban planning and is among the most important factors affecting land's profitability and existing valuation. In order to implement the principle of just compensation, these factors must be accurately reflected in the compensation evaluation of land, but the current compensation practice does not distinguish between the public law restrictions and the actual use status. Confusion in compensation practices stems largely from the imperfections of our urban planning, together with the problems inherent in the norms of current land compensation legislation. In this case the court made important judgments regarding ① development permission and ② the way in which development unit is considered in evaluating land compensation for expropriation of land for the implementation of public works. The building, which the defendant built on the land of this case, is a privileged building prescribed by law, and can be installed while maintaining the building ban in the area without lifting the restricted area. The conclusion of the ruling regarding development permission is justified because the defendant's construction of this building on the land of the case does not constitute an official view of the administration granting development permit. Regarding the development unit, the Supreme Court broke an appeal judgment, noting that the building did not exist while considering the designation of the ‘site’ as an important factor in the Building Act. If the building is destroyed, the designation of the site on the premise of the building permit will be considered to be ineffective. Therefore, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is convincing. However, it is considered to be a limitation on the public law that it is not possible to divide and develop a designated site under the Building Act. Although the court considers the function of urban planning in the form of mixed use with the actual use situation, it seems to place an important weight on the normative elements of urban planning in actual judgment. In addition, the ruling is meaningful in that it suggests that the validity of the development unit is not just a matter of fact recognition but includes a legal matter.