4.9
Improvement of Land Expropriation and Compensation System
토지수용보상 관련법제의 정비에 관한 연구(RR96-8) Hai-Woong Yoo and Woo-Hyung Cheong
1996. 12․341 pages․Korean
Along with the increase of infrastructure investment, such as roads, railways, harbor and airport facilities, and residential and industrial estate development projects, implementing such public works in time has been emphasized recently.
However, there have been some disagreements regarding land acquisition and compensation between developers and land owners. This is why the legal system for land expropriation and compensation needs to be revised to serve more reasonable compensation and operation of public works.
The present study aims to shed lights on the subjects aforementioned, and as a matter of course, suggest recommendations based on comparative studies of foreign systems. This study begins Chapter 1 with presenting general issues and problems concerning land expropriation and compensation, and outlines the purposes, scope and approach of this study.
Chapter 2 provides a juridical theory on land expropriation and compensation.
Even though the civil property right is legally guaranteed, the right can also be restricted by law for the purpose of enhancing public interests through fair compensation. Moreover, the scope of property expropriation and compensation is increasingly enlarging and the betterment gains from compensation continues to decrease.
Chapter 3 presents several issues on land expropriation and compensation through a brief analysis on the related Acts. Current legal system is duplicated because the legislation system is divided into two Acts. One is the Land Expropriation Act, and the other is the Special Cases Act on Acquisition of Public Land and Compensation for Losses. The current land expropriation and compensation system has some drawbacks, including the duality of baseline date for compensation, lack of clarity in compensation criteria for remaining land, high increase in compensation by changes of articles, and lack of objective assessment criteria and compensation methods, and so on. In addition, with the
emerging localization era, land acquisition will becoming harder than ever depending on local government's cooperation.
Chapter 4 provides comparative overview of the land expropriation and compensation systems and its operations in Japan, France and Germany. This comparative study attempted to analyze the legal system on land expropriation and compensation, public land acquisition methods, expropriation procedures, basis and computation for land compensation, methods of compensation, etc.
Chapter 5 suggests both basic directions for revising the land expropriation and compensation Acts, and alternatives for the legal system on land expropriation and compensation. While the former emphasizes that the systematization and improvement of related acts are geared to implement smooth public works, the latter calls for the systematization of the related Acts in short-term period. In the long-run, the section of public land acquisition is proposed to streamline with the Land Acquisition Act. It is also proposed that the assessment section needs to be regulated independently.
In the part of legislation revision, the project approval date of is suggested as the baseline date for compensation to prevent high increases in project costs and to promote land acquisition by commission. In order to carry out fair compensation, the present study recommends to stipulate the unprescribed compensation and increased resettlements fund and housing expenses for migrants in the relevant Act.
Chapter 6 outlines policy implications, including both systematization of the related Acts, and revision of the outdated articles in relevant Acts in near future. In the long-run, integrating the two Acts is recommended, but it should be based on the advanced legal system for land expropriation and compensation.
