개발제한구역의 관리실태 및 정책상 문제점 연구 : 훼손부담금을 중심으로

개발제한구역 관리와 훼손부담금의 문제점을 분석한다.

Development Restricted Zone System is a representative urban plan restricted that has continuously aroused a controversy since its introduction in 1971. It has been given a favorable reception in its great contribution to the secure for urban citizens of sound life environment by preventing flat diffusion and U-Conurbation of city and preserving the natural environment near the city, while unfavorable reception in its result that the citizens who reside in such zone are subject to strict control in their usage of land, causing them live far retarded in terms of economy and culture, and even they cannot get compensation for such property right infringed resulting in the doubled loss.

For 30 years since then, Development Restricted Zone System in our nation has accomplished its purpose to a certain degree, but a variety of opinions are raised by even the ordinary people as well as government or academic circle on the issue of readjusting abolishment and preservation, which would possibly produce side effects. During that time, the change in land type was the main cause of the damage in the Development Restricted Zone, approx. 61.6% of which in its area was attributed by the installation of public facility.

Thus, to prohibit the damage in Development Restricted Zone and secure the financial resources necessary to manage the Development Restricted Zone, the law on the damage levy system in the Development Restricted Zone limited for five years (July 1, 2000 ~ June 30, 2005) was enacted where the owner of the land in and out of the Zone should pay the difference in case of the permit that involves the land type of which is changed in the Development Restricted Zone Damage Levy System is intended to prevent the damage to the Zone by limiting the careless location of large scaled facility on the Zone taking advantage of low land price, and to prepare the financial resource necessary for purchase of land, resident support, etc.

Ironically, both objectives of above conflicts each other. It is because the strict control of the damage in the zone results in the drop of financial resources, while more damage results in the increase of financial resources. Therefore, it would not be easy to achieve both targets simultaneously. Damage Levy System doesn't seem to take effect beyond its original intention, but it rather causes to promote proper damage to the public sector. . The problems and the points to be improved in relation with our Damage Levy System in the Zone can be summarized as follow. First, there exists discrepancy between the area of type changed and the relevant amount of Damage Levy collected.

In case of the Damage Levy calculated from 2000 until 2005, the difference of land prices showed minus, and therefore Damage Levy was not imposed in those cases. The description of Damage Levy imposed in six cities such as Suwon, Seongnam, Gwangmyeong, Ansan, Shiheung, Namyangju, etc. in Gyeonggi-do shows that Damage Levy wasn't imposed to 18% of the total area where the type was changed. In case of Namyangju out of these six cities, Damage Levy wasn't imposed to 37.1%. Especially in this area, the difference of land prices was larger than any other area.

Like this, in case the land price in the Zone is higher than the adjacent area, even if the Development Restricted Zone is damaged, Damage Levy could not be imposed just because the difference of land prices is minus, which was a blind point of law.. Second, the system is inefficient in its too complex method of calculation. Current Damage Levy System differently applies the rate of levy in 10-100% depending on the facility, and furthermore, the reduction ratio also varies from 30% to 100%. Due to such complex method of calculation, it is very difficult for the levy payer to calculate the levy fee.

Furthermore, it is difficult to know whether such complex system comply with the original purpose of the system. Third, there exists a question of equilibrium about its rate of levy. There has been consistent conflicts following the differential application of both rates of imposition and reduction.

Public facilities, sometimes, are divided to apply the rate of imposition according to the project developer (privately invested project, government invested institute, local government invested enterprise, Korea Airport Authority etc.), and sometimes, regarding a facility, the relevant facility is excluded (golf club is excluded from outdoor facility, or in case automobile natural gas distribution facility is installed in the bus garage and its associated area, it is excluded, etc.). Likewise, the system is applied in every detail, which is unfair compared to the regulation of architectural behavior strictly applied to the resident in the zone.

In case of total 707 facilities that caused the change in land type in the Zone until 2005, 653 facilities were those where the public institute was installed occupying 92.4%. As the point to be reasonably improved in the Damage Levy System, it can be suggested that the existing method of calculation should be changed into the method where the reference amount can be multiplied depending on the area damaged to calculate the damage levy, which would be a reasonable way in that the levy can be imposed as much as the extent of damage to Development Restricted Zone, which also comply with the principle of preventing the damage of the zone.

Furthermore, it is necessary for the system to be improved so that the private investor or developer can understand and accept in fair and reasonable manner. 개발제한구역제도는 지난 1971년 도입된 이래 끊임없는 논란을 불러 일으켜 온 대표적인 도시계획제한으로써, 도시의 평면적 확산방지와 도시의 연담화 방지, 도시주변 자연환경을 보전하여 도시민의 건전한 생활환경 확보에 크게 기여했다는 긍정적인 평가와 개발제한구역내 거주하는 주민들은 엄격한 토지이용 규제를 받아 경제적으로나 문화적으로 낙후된 생활을 하고 있으며 이로 인한 재산권 침해의 보상을 받지 못하여 이중의 손해를 받고 있다는 부정적 평가를 동시에 받고 있다. 그 후 30년 동안 우리나라의 개발제한구역제도는 지정 당시 목적을 지정이후 어느 정도 달성하였으나, 해제와 보전에 관한 재조정 문제를 둘러싸고 정부나 학계 뿐 아니라 일반 국민들의 다양한 견해들이 등장하고 있고 이에 따른 부작용도 점증되고 있는 실정이다. 그동안 개발제한 구역에서 훼손의 주원인인 토지형질변경 면적