｢도시재생법｣의 몇 가지 법리적 문제점

Some legal issues of the Urban Regeneration Act

Korea quickly urbanized after modernization, and rapid urban redevelopment began with the enactment of the Urban Redevelopment Act according to the understanding of construction companies and land owners rather than the aging of buildings. However, the government enacted the Urban Regeneration Act, similar to Japanese law, considering foreign Acts and cases, as it was difficult to restore urban functions just by redevelopment and reconstruction to raise real estate prices. Urban regeneration was slow to implement due to the low profitability of the project, and it was basically not effective in conflict with development needs. As the times change, the new government is pushing for urban renewal New Deal projects and Green New Deal projects led by the private sector. Therefore, various improvements for effective business implementation have been legislated in the Urban Regeneration Act, but as a result, confusion in the legal system of the land public law has arisen as the Urban Regeneration Act has become more complicated. Therefore, in order for the current Urban Regeneration Act to operate legally in accordance with the legal use and other Acts, it must first be legally reviewed in accordance with the legislative purpose of the Urban Regeneration Act. First of all, the Urban Regeneration Act should be divided into existing urban redevelopment laws for redevelopment or reconstruction projects, and in this regard, if there is no bilateral integration law, the existing urban regeneration projects and urban maintenance projects should be reviewed. Furthermore, considering the special situation of the gap between rich and poor in Korea, the issue of residential welfare must also be seriously considered in the Urban Regeneration Act to effectively guarantee indigenous people s right to live. In addition, the “consistency and systematicity of plans” between relevant administrative plans within the Urban Regeneration Act shall be legally secured according to the correct legal classification. In addition, since urban regeneration promotion organizations are dispersed into the state, local governments, and the private sector, systematic integration and cooperation should be defined. Furthermore, the current district designation and the resulting restrictions on behavior overlap with related urban planning laws, which are somewhat legally problematic, and should be reviewed legally and improved properly. In order to fully improve the legal system and legal problems of the Urban Regeneration Act, the entire Urban Regeneration Act involving jurists should be revised, not by technical experts to promote the project so far. With these amendments, the legal system and legal problems of the Urban Regeneration Act shall be readjusted in accordance with the legal system and legal principles of the entire land public law.