용도지역제에 기반한 주거용 오피스텔의 문제와 개선방향

Abstract

The use zoning system in urban planning promotes efficient use of land based on each use by dividing residential and commercial areas according to their respective functions. Since officetels were first distributed in commercial areas in 1985, the supply of residential officetels has increased every year. A total of 941,737 officetels were supplied nationwide by June 2021, of which 71.5% were residential officetels. Since residential officetels are classified as business facilities under the Building Act, the Act on Ownership and Management of Collective Buildings, not the Housing Act, applies. When a residential officetel is built in a commercial area, the minimum housing standards applied to housing do not apply, and there is no obligation to install convenience facilities for residents. Also, it is excluded from the standard for calculating school facilities under the School Land Act. As such, the expansion of the supply of residential officetels causes problems in urban management. Also, there are problems in building management because the regulations on building management are insufficient in the collective building law that regulates officetels. The problem of urban management and building management for these officetels is due to the conflict between the use zoning system and the government's housing supply policy. In principle, the construction of residential officetels in commercial areas does not meet the purpose of the use zoning system. Therefore, fundamentally, the construction of residential officetels in commercial areas should be avoided or housing measures should be established in line with the purpose of the use zoning system. On the other hand, since officetels built against the purpose of the zoning system are also in accordance with the government's housing supply policy, residents of residential officetels must receive protection equivalent to that of housing residents. Although residential officetels are actually apartment houses, they are classified as business facilities by law, so the Collective Building Act, not the Apartment House Management Act, is applied. As a result, residents of residential officetels do not receive the same protections as tenants under the Apartment Housing Management Act. By comparing and analyzing the MDU and the Collective Building Act, this thesis identified the problems of the Collective Building Act as insufficient protection of occupants' rights, lack of management group assembly regulations, and lack of institutional control devices. Accordingly, the directions for institutional resolution of residential officetel management were divided into improvement of occupants' rights, improvement of management group assembly system, and improvement of institutional control system. Since residents of residential officetels are occupants of apartment houses, the Collective Building Act should be amended to protect them in accordance with the Multi-House Management Act.