재건축 안전진단 제도 개선 방안 연구

Abstract

Reconstruction contributes to improving the quality of life of residents by creating an aging, unstable and poor residential environment into a safe and pleasant residential environment, and is also an important means of realizing basic constitutional rights such as people's right to pursue happiness, property rights, and housing freedom. However, the reconstruction project is causing a lot of confusion to the housing market and the people as related laws and systems repeatedly regulate and ease due to the ups and downs of the housing market and regime change.
 Accordingly, this study attempted to investigate and analyze legislative system improvement efforts raised by the National Assembly on the “Safety Diagnosis Standards for Housing Reconstruction” announced by the government and derive reasonable system improvement measures through Delphi, experts related to safety diagnosis. Based on this process, I would like to propose a plan to improve the current housing reconstruction safety diagnosis system.
 First, the authority to determine safety diagnosis, including the composition and ratio of each item of the safety diagnosis evaluation criteria, should be delegated to the head of the metropolitan government. Critics say that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport does not reflect the characteristics of the region and hinders the smooth promotion of reconstruction projects by setting safety diagnosis standards uniformly and uniformly in different situations. Therefore, it is necessary to delegate the authority to decide on safety diagnosis standards to the heads of metropolitan local governments.
 Second, Article 2, Subparagraph 3 (b) of the current Urban Improvement Act defines “significant functional defects among buildings that have not secured seismic performance” as old-age defective buildings. However, whether or not seismic design is reflected in the structural safety evaluation item is omitted. Structural safety assessment items should include whether seismic design is reflected.
 Third, although geological conditions and ground conditions have a very significant impact on the structural safety of buildings, geological conditions and ground conditions are omitted from the structural stability evaluation items. The omission of these important evaluation factors is a factor that degrades the validity and reliability of the safety diagnosis evaluation results.
 Fourth, the use of asbestos building materials should be reflected in the safety diagnosis evaluation items. When inhaled into the human body, asbestos, a first-class carcinogen designated by the World Health Organization, causes fatal diseases such as asbestos lung disease, lung cancer, and malignant mesothelioma. Therefore, in Korea, the Asbestos Safety Management Act has been enacted to thoroughly manage asbestos exposure contained in buildings so that it does not damage public health.
 Fifth, it is necessary for local governments to support certain costs incurred by conducting safety diagnosis for housing reconstruction. However, some say that local governments should not invest in projects to rebuild private property, but the reconstruction project improves the residential environment of owners, such as local land, while creating public benefits such as roads, parks, community facilities, and public rental housing. It is currently supported by some local governments.