잔여지 보상에 관한 법적과제

Abstract

As a public project, the project operator installs railways, roads, high-voltage lines and steel towers, rivers, old houses, parks, sports facilities, etc., and the remaining land is left in a long linear form, or becomes irregular and the value of the remaining land falls, or the remaining land is returned to its original state. If it is significantly impossible to use it for its intended purpose, compensation for acquisition or depreciation of the remaining land may be claimed. In addition, if new passages, ditches, fences, etc. in the remaining land are needed or other construction is required in the remaining land, compensation for the construction costs of the remaining land can be claimed.
 However, not only are the residual land compensation requirements under the Land Compensation Act strictly applied, but the expropriated person is unable to properly prove whether the remaining land is a piece of land, whether the value of the remaining land has decreased, and that it cannot be used for its original purpose, so purchase and expropriate the remaining land. Not only was the claim not accepted for decision, but there were cases where the request was dismissed without going through a decision even though the requirements for a claim for purchase and expropriation of the remaining land were met.
 In particular, when a project operator compensates for residual land, the Land Expropriation Act lacks specific provisions on fair compensation, or the standards for compensation for residual land must be specifically determined in the Land Compensation Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in accordance with the legal reservation principle, but it is operated under the guidelines of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. What is happening is reality.
 Therefore, after identifying the concept and requirements of residual land compensation, we seek implications by reviewing legislative examples of residual land compensation in Korea, Germany, France, Japan, and the United States. Residual land compensation and fair compensation, introduction of a system for hearing opinions of expropriated persons as a preliminary rights relief procedure for those subject to residual land compensation, expansion of claims for purchase and expropriation of residual land and claims for loss compensation through rationalization of residual land compensation requirements, and profit recovery system for the increase in value of residual land. Presents legal challenges regarding introduction. In other words, in order to provide fair compensation for the loss of remaining land in accordance with Article 23 of the Constitution, various measures such as transaction comparison case law, cost approach law, and income comparison law should be legislatively prepared in the Land Compensation Act to reflect fair market value. In addition, the concept of a group of land and residual land should be specifically specified in the Land Compensation Act, and compensation requirements should be relaxed so that the expropriated person can claim compensation for residual land, as is the case in legislation such as Germany, France, and the United States, and the value should be guaranteed as much as possible. In addition, the Land Compensation Act requires the project operator to notify the expropriator of the details and list of compensation for losses on the remaining land when purchasing and expropriating land for public projects, as is the case in the United States, and as a preliminary relief procedure for the Land Expropriation Committee’s decision on the remaining land compensation. A residual land compensation deliberation committee must be established to hear opinions.