• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.2
• /
• pp.156-179
• /
• 2020

The Preservation Decree (1933) is the basic law relevant to the conservation of cultural property of colonial Chosun, and invoked clauses from the Old History Preservation Act (1897), the Historic Scenic Sites Natural Monument Preservation Act (1919), and the National Treasure Preservation Act (1929), which were all forms of Japanese Modern Cultural Heritage Law, and actually used the corresponding legal text of those laws. Thus, the fact that the Preservation Decree transplanted or imitated the Japanese Modern Cultural Heritage Law in the composition of the constitution can be proved to some extent. The main features and characteristics of the Preservation Decree are summarized below. First, in terms of preservation of cultural property, the Preservation Decree strengthened and expanded preservation beyond the existing conservation rules. In the conservation rules, the categories of cultural properties were limited to historic sites and relics, while the Preservation Decree classifies cultural properties into four categories: treasures, historic sites, scenic spots, and natural monuments. In addition, the Preservation Decree is considered to have advanced cultural property preservation law by establishing the standard for conserving cultural property, expanding the scope of cultural property, introducing explicit provisions on the restriction of ownership and the designation system for cultural property, and defining the basis for supporting the natural treasury. Second, the Preservation Decree admittedly had limitations as a colonial cultural property law. Article 1 of the Preservation Decree sets the standard of "Historic Enhancement or Example of Art" as a criteria for designating treasures. With the perspective of Japanese imperialism, this acted as a criterion for catering to cultural assets based on the governor's assimilation policy, revealing its limitations as a standard for preserving cultural assets. In addition, the Japanese imperialists asserted that the cultural property law served to reduce cultural property robbery, but the robbery and exporting of cultural assets by such means as grave robbery, trafficking, and exportation to Japan did not cease even after the Preservation Decree came into effect. This is because governors and officials who had to obey and protect the law become parties to looting and extraction of property, or the plunder and release of cultural property by the Japanese continued with their acknowledgement,. This indicates that cultural property legislation at that time did not function properly, as the governor allowed or condoned such exporting and plundering. In this way, the cultural property laws of the Japanese colonial period constituted discriminative colonial legislation which was selected and applied from the perspective of the Japanese government-general in the designation and preservation of cultural property, and the cultural property policy of Japan focused on the use of cultural assets as a means of realizing their assimilation policy. Therefore, this suggests that the cultural property legislation during the Japanese colonial period was used as a mechanism to solidify the cultural colonial rules of Chosun and to realize the assimilation policy of the Japanese government-general.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.2
• /
• pp.88-109
• /
• 2020

This study aimed to distinguish categories of archival information and identify properties by their detail types, so that the various forms of architectural heritage information generated can be managed based on their attributes and characteristics. First, the specific uses of terms in the legal system were reviewed and their associated concepts specifically defined. "Architectural heritage" was defined as architecture belonging to the category of tangible cultural heritage as designated by law, and "architectural heritage archival information" was defined as all kinds of material expressed by electronic processing of the actual status for preservation and management. Next, the production status of architectural heritage archival information was reviewed in relation to the legal system. This confirmed that relevant legal systems were organized hierarchically and that various types of archival information were generated in a single project. Furthermore, it was confirmed that even archival information produced in the same form contained differing contents depending on the specific purpose and method, and that there was no classification by which to cover all archival information. Finally, it was also confirmed that detailed drawing types could be categorized according to the purpose of production and the target of the records. Based on the findings of this review, the type and properties of archival information were presented as the primary classification criteria, and the architectural heritage archival information was divided into 6 general types and 27 detailed types. Specifically, the linguistic form, dimension, temporal property, and graphic form of archival information were applied as criteria for the classification of general types, and the target, production purpose, production method of archival information, and content characteristics of archival information properties of archival information by type were comprehensively reviewed.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.3
• /
• pp.91-98
• /
• 1967

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.1
• /
• pp.64-87
• /
• 2020

The cultural property management system of Korea was established based on the modern cultural assets acts and the old imperial estate management system enacted during the Japanese occupation. Academics have researched the cultural property management system oriented on the modern cultural assets acts, but few studies have been conducted into the old imperial estate management system, which is another axis of the cultural property management system. The old imperial estate was separated from the feudal capital by the Kabo Reform, but was dismantled during the colonial invasion of Japan and managed as a hereditary property of the colonial royal family during the Japanese colonial period. After establishment of the government, the Imperial Estate Act was enacted in 1954 and defined the estate as a historical cultural property managed by the Imperial Estate Administration Office. At this time, imperial estate property that was designated as permanent preservation property was officially recognized as constituting state-owned cultural assets and public goods in accordance with Article 2 of the Act's supplementary provisions during 1963, when the first amendment to the Cultural Property Protection act was implemented. In conclusion, Korea's cultural property formation and cultural property management system were integrated into one unit from two different sources: modern cultural assets acts and the old imperial estate property management system. If the change of modern cultural assets acts was the process of regulating and managing cultural property by transplanting and applying regulations from Japan to colonial Joseon, the management of the imperial estate was a process by which the Japanese colonized the Korean Empire and disposed of the imperial estate. Independence and the establishment of the government of the Republic of Korea provided the opportunity to combine these two different streams into one. Finally, this integration was completed with the establishment of the Protection of Cultural Properties Act in 1962.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.52 no.4
• /
• pp.78-103
• /
• 2019

The Conservation Decree of the Chosun Treasures Historic and Natural Monuments (hereinafter referred to as the Conservation Decree), which was enacted during the Japanese colonial period, was preserved in accordance with the provisions of article No. 100 of the constitutional law. However, legislative attempts were made to replace the Conservation Decree during the US military administration and early Korean Government. The first attempt was about the National Treasures Historic and Natural Monuments which were brought in by the Legislative Assembly of South Chosun (1947) during the US military administration. The second was a bill by the government for preservation of historical interests (1950), which was submitted to the National Assembly on March 15, 1950 (the so-called Preservation Act (1950)). These two bills were amended and supplemented on the basis of the existing contents of the Conservation Decree. Afterwards, from 1952 to 1960, the legislation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (1959) and the Cultural Heritage Bill (1960) were subsequently introduced and enacted. The government's attempt to enact such a cultural property bill was aimed at the legislature to replace the preservation order system that had been in effect since the Japanese colonial period. However, due to the political situation at the time, these laws did not reach final legislation. In October 1960, the government enacted the Regulations for the Preservation of Cultural Property, which was an administrative edict that was promulgated and enacted in November. This was the first official cultural property decree introduced by the Korean government. With the enactment and promulgation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in January 1962, Korea's judicial cultural property legislation was established, based on the Korean government's unremitting efforts and experience in legislation of cultural property. In that context, the Cultural Heritage Protection Act is a historical product. The Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which was enacted in 1962, is known to emulate or transplant Japan's Cultural Heritage Protection Act (1950). It was not fully recognized that it was an extension of the Korean government's legislative process of cultural property during the period of 1945-1960. Therefore, it is important to examine the legislative process of cultural property from 1945 to 1960 to understand the background of enacting the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in 1962 along with the establishment of the Korean Cultural Property Law.

• Fire Science and Engineering
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.19-26
• /
• 2015

This study covers securing legal systems and institutions regarding the standards for installing fire prevention facilities to prevent fire on wooden architectural heritage. Conflicts among relevant laws were revealed and problems related to fire prevention performance, technical standards, responsibilities, etc. in the process of establishing legal fire prevention equipment and the equipment for self-extinguishing were identified through pondering over current legal systems of fire prevention facilities. To resolve the problems, at least the principle to preserve original shapes of wooden architectural heritage should be secured even though fire prevention facilities are installed and the installation process should be regulated by laws considering features of fire on wooden architectural heritage so that fire prevention performance can be guaranteed. The directions to improve installing system through legalization of design, construction, and audit review institutions and legalization of the technical standards for fire prevention facilities were suggested to guarantee performance when establishing fire prevention facilities for wooden architectural heritage.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.274-291
• /
• 2020

This year is the 50th anniversary of the adoption by UNESCO in 1970 of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (the '1970 Convention'). Since its ratification of the 1970 Convention in 1983, the Republic of Korea has domestically implemented the Convention through its Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which was first enacted in 1962. This is a different form of implementation than is normally used for other UNESCO Conventions on cultural heritage, in that the Republic of Korea has recently adopted special acts to enforce the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. In addition, the 1970 Convention has been developed further through the introduction of new Operational Guidelines in 2015 for the concrete enforcement of the Convention, which has provided momentum for the Republic of Korea to analyze its current national legislation related to the 1970 Convention as well as consider its amendment in the future. Overall, the Cultural Heritage Protection Act of the Republic of Korea effectively reflects the duties of States Parties under the 1970 Convention. These include measures to introduce export certificates, prohibit the import of stolen cultural property, return other state parties' cultural property, and impose penalties or administrative sanctions in the event of any infringements. Indeed, the Republic of Korea's implementation of the 1970 Convention was introduced as an example of good practice at the Meeting of State Parties in 2019. However, changes in the illegal market for cultural property and development of relevant international law and measures imply that there still exists room for improvement concerning the legal implementation of the 1970 Convention at the national level. In particular, the Operational Guidelines recommend States Parties to adopt legal measures in two respects: detailed criteria for due diligence in assessing bona-fide purchasers, referring to the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, and measures to address the emerging issue of illegal trade in cultural property on internet platforms. Amendment of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and other relevant laws should be considered in order to duly reflect these issues. Taking that opportunity, concrete provisions to facilitate international cooperation in respect of the implementation of the 1970 Convention could be introduced as well. Such measures could be expected to strengthen the Republic of Korea's international legal cooperation to respond to the changing environment regarding illicit trafficking of cultural property and its restitution.

• Journal of architectural history
• /
• v.27 no.5
• /
• pp.27-38
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to identify the legal definition and usage of cultural property term related to the architecture within the cultural property-related legal system and general legal system, and to present proper terminology and specific concepts that can be used for the architecture as cultural properties. In the current cultural property legislative system, terms about the architecture are diverse and obscure, and the definition of each term is different from the concept in the general legal system. In this context, this study presented the terminology of 'the architectural heritage' as 'a cultural property by construction act' to cover whole cultural properties related to Korean architecture. And the conceptual scope of the architectural heritage is divided into the technology and the performer related to the act, the record and the building related to the product. and Each concept needs to be specifically tailored to its object and scope. Systematic definition of terms for cultural properties related the architecture can positively influence systematization of cultural property preservation and management as well as empirical research and education on Korean architecture.

• Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea Planning & Design
• /
• v.35 no.4
• /
• pp.103-114
• /
• 2019

From the "Recommendation on the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character Landscapes and Sites"(1962) to the "ICOMOS-IFLA Document on Historic Urban Public Parks"(2017), 'the spatial safeguarding Concept of Cultural Heritage' in International Norms has manifested in various types. In this article, 24 types of International Norms that reflect 'the concept of Spatial Safeguarding in Cultural Heritage' and Korea legal system such as 'Historical and Cultural Environment' were analyzed in the following two aspects. The first aspect is 'Object Type to safeguard' and analyzed in four types such as 'Groups of buildings(A type)', 'Surrounding, Environment, Setting(B type)', 'Cultural landscape(C type)', 'Historic area and Historic towns(D type)'. The second aspect is 'Safeguarding value(analysis elements)' and analyzed in the following tree elements ; 'Landscape value' such as skyline, 'Intangible value' such as the functions of cultural customs, and 'Ecological value' that should preserve life itself. As a result of the study, 'the concept of Spatial Safeguarding in Cultural Heritage' including C and D type and three value which are trends of International Norms are reflected in Korea legal system, and concrete safeguarding methodology is also implemented systematically in case of ecological value. However, intangible values are not specific to the methodology in both International norms and Korea legal systems, and should be developed in the future.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.51 no.4
• /
• pp.254-275
• /
• 2018

Taiwan and Korea have common memories of colonization by Japan. Therefore, for researchers studying colonial times, the two countries are becoming good comparative studies. In this article, a comparison of cultural properties systems between Taiwan and Joseon revealed the following. First, from a legal point of view, Japan's internalism was reflected to some extent in Taiwan. Accordingly, Taiwan's "Enforcement regulations for Historical scenic spot scenic natural monument storage method(short, Enforcement regulations)" was subordinate to Japanese law, and the Joseon's "Enforcement ordinances for Treasure and Historical scenic spot scenic natural monument storage method in Joseon(short, Enforcement ordinances)" was less than the preservation order of Taiwan. But it is not possible to equate the two differences to Japan's oppressive levels. Second, while the Joseon's "Enforcement ordinances" enactment referred to relevant laws that were promulgated in Japan, it is highly likely that Taiwan's "Enforcement regulations" When establishing Joseon's "Enforcement ordinances" order, it is reasonable to assume that all laws concerning cultural properties of Japan and Taiwan were taken into consideration. Third, the difference between Taiwan and Joseon in the quantity and content designated as cultural properties was huge. The difference in the designated quantity between Taiwan and Joseon was the difference between traditional cultural resources between the two regions, which led to 14 times more cultural properties designated in Joseon than in Taiwan. And while nearly half of Taiwan's history was the vestiges of Japan's ruling power, few of the ancient sites designated by the Joseon had traces of Japanese ruling forces. This is the result of a difference in the views that the two powers had on cultural properties.