미국에서의 토지재산권에 대한 정당한 보상의 기준 - 판례를 중심으로 -
The standard of the just compensation for the land property right in the United States- On the basis of leading case -
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The concept of just compensation from federal constitution or State constitution of the United States was not established accurately. The interpretation and the concept of just compensation depended on judicial precedent and theory of the court of justice. Today the principle was established in the United States since the concept of fair market value started to be used as standard of the just compensation in the Judicial precedent for the case of Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States in 1893. Fair market value is recognized by the federal Supreme Court and each State court of justice as the bargain price that the willing seller who is not exacted a disposal will pay for the willing buyer who is not exacted to buying. Even though fair market value is not the only standard for just compensation, the court of justice has applied and interpreted it as the standard of just compensation. This article observes the fair market value recognized by the court of justice and the things which are included and excluded in the fair market value for the just compensation through the leading case. And this article also considers the proper compensation standard of a land property right and issue related with that
Abstract
The concept of just compensation from federal constitution or State constitution of the United States was not established accurately. The interpretation and the concept of just compensation depended on judicial precedent and theory of the court of justice. Today the principle was established in the United States since the concept of fair market value started to be used as standard of the just compensation in the Judicial precedent for the case of Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States in 1893. Fair market value is recognized by the federal Supreme Court and each State court of justice as the bargain price that the willing seller who is not exacted a disposal will pay for the willing buyer who is not exacted to buying. Even though fair market value is not the only standard for just compensation, the court of justice has applied and interpreted it as the standard of just compensation. This article observes the fair market value recognized by the court of justice and the things which are included and excluded in the fair market value for the just compensation through the leading case. And this article also considers the proper compensation standard of a land property right and issue related with that
참고문헌 (37)
- 김창휘, "미국의 손실보상기준에 관한 연구", 토지공법연구, 26 (2005)
- 박윤흔, "미국에 있어서 손실보장 평가의 기준", 미국헌법연구, (4) (1993)
- 성선제, "정당한 보상”-미국의 경험을 중심으로-", 토지공법연구, 19 (2003)
- 이동수, "기업도시개발과 정당 보상", 토지공법연구, 29 (2005)
- 高原賢治, "財産權と損失補償" (1978), 有斐閣
- 寺尾美子, "アメリカ法における ??正當な?? 補償と開發利益 -アメリカ法におけるthe public の? 考察資料として", 法學協會雜誌, 112(11)
- Donald G. Hagman, "Urban Planning and Land Development Contro. Law, 2nr ed." (1986), West Publishing Co.
- Josep M. Montano, "Enhancement Scope of the Project, ALI-ABA", Eminent Domain
- "and Land Valuation Litigation, The American Law Institute", ~ (1993)
- Julus L. Sackman, "Nichols` The Law of Eminent Domain, Rev. 3rd ed.", Mattew Bender, 3 (1979)
- Julis L. Sackman, "Nichol`s The Law of Eminent Domain. Rev. 3rd ed.", Matthew Bender, 4A (1979)
- Laura H. Burney, "Just Compensation and the Condemnation of Future Interests: Empirical Evidence on the Failure of Fair Market Value", B.Y.U. Rev, pp.789~ (1989)
- The Appraisal of Real Estate, "American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers" (1987)
- Almota Farmers Elevator, , U.S, 109, pp.470~ (1973)
- Bauman v. Ross, , U.S, 167, pp.548~ (1897)
- Boom Co, "Patterson", U. S, 98, pp.403~ (1878)
- City of New York v. William Sage, , U.S, 239, pp.57~ (1915)
- "Housing Authority v. Kosydor, 17 Ill. 2d 602, 162 N.E. 2d 357", ~ (1959)
- "Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Department of Transp., 563 So. 2d 622", ~ (1970)
- Kerr v, "South Park Commissioners", U.S, 117, pp.379~ (1886)
- Lucas v, "South Carolina Coastal Council", S. Ct, 112, pp.2886~ (1992)
- Monongahela Navigation Co. v, "United States", U.S, 148, pp.312~ (1893)
- Olson v, "United States", U.S, 292, pp.246~ (1934)
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v, "New York City", U. S, 438, pp.104~ (1978)
- Seaboard Air line Railway Co, "U.S.", U.S, 261, pp.299~ (1923)
- Sharp v, "United States", U. S, 191, pp.341~ (1903)
- Shoemaker v, "United States", U.S, 147, pp.282~ (1893)
- U.S. ex rel, "Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson", U.S, 319, pp.266~ (1943)
- United States, "50 Acres of Land", U. S, 469, pp.25~ (1984)
- United States v, "564.54 Acres of Land", U. S, 441, pp.506~ (1979)
- United States, "Chandler-Dunbar Water Co.", U.S, 229, pp.53~ (1913)
- United States, "General Motors Corp.", U.S, 323, pp.373~ (1945)
- United States, "John J. Felin & Co.", U. S, 334, pp.624~ (1948)
- United States, "Miller", U.S, 317, pp.369~ (1943)
- United States, "Reynold", U. S, 397, pp.14~ (1970)
- United States, "Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Navigation Co", U.S, 338, pp.396~ (1949)
- United States, "Virginia Electric and Power Co.", U.S, 365, pp.624~ (1961)