생태계 복원 의무와 토지이용 규제의 헌법적 한계에 대한 법적 연구

생태계 복원 의무를 결합한 토지이용 규제의 헌법적 한계를 검토한다.

This article examines the constitutional implications that arise when ecosystem restoration obligations are combined with land-use regulation, with particular attention to the structure of property-rights protection. Unlike conventional conservation measures that primarily restrain development, restoration-oriented regulation presupposes active interventions aimed at recovering and maintaining specified ecological conditions; accordingly, restrictions on land use tend to be organized through long-term, cumulative planning instruments rather than isolated administrative decisions.

To clarify this mechanism, the article decomposes restoration obligations into four normative components—targets, performance standards, procedural/plan-based governance, and enforceability—and develops an analytical framework for assessing how these components translate into property-rights burdens.

The article then analyzes Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 (the Nature Restoration Law), focusing on its integrated compliance architecture centered on National Restoration Plans, its non-deterioration requirement, its derogations, and its procedural safeguards, thereby identifying how restoration duties are institutionally reconciled with property protection and Member-State discretion within the EU legal order.

Next, the article assesses restoration-type land-use constraints through the lens of Article 14 of the German Basic Law and relevant jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court, where such measures are typically conceptualized as determinations of the content and limits of property, while deprivation-like effects or excessive burdens may trigger intensified proportionality review and raise questions of compensatory adjustment. On this basis—and assuming that a comparable restoration-oriented regime were to be introduced in Korea—the article evaluates the constitutional boundary between permissible “social obligations” and “special sacrifice” under Korean constitutional jurisprudence.

It argues that where restoration-related regulation exceeds tolerable limits, constitutionally adequate mitigation should be structured through a package of measures, including compensation, purchase/transfer mechanisms, tailored exemptions, phased implementation, and targeted support. Finally, the article proposes an institutional design that strengthens the procedural legalization of restoration planning—public participation, reason-giving, strategic/environmental assessment, and ex post monitoring and review—in order to enhance legitimacy and prevent disputes.