• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.51 no.1
• /
• pp.13-28
• /
• 2023

This study examines the process of project promotion in Busan, which introduced the private participation-type consultative body for the first time in the country in the promotion stage of the private-initiated park development project, and introduced flexible application of the system and differentiated policy elements in the implementation process, and examines the operational characteristics and we tried to analyze performance, etc. As a result of the analysis, first, the preferred bidder was selected by introducing a mixed method in the project method, which is an independent project method that cannot be seen in other local governments. Second, by specifying guidelines considering the characteristics of each park and detailed guidelines such as the location, area, and maximum height of non-park facilities, criteria for establishing a rational development plan utilizing regional identity and the basis of evaluation standards were laid. Third, in the project process, transparency was secured through the delegation-type roundtable, in which the private sector performs the functions and roles of key actors, thereby preventing disputes such as suspicion of preferential treatment. Fourth, in order to improve the quality of park facilities to be donated and to secure design adequacy, after approval of the implementation plan, a general planner was introduced and construction project management (design stage) services were performed to promote efficient implementation and specialization of luxury parks in the region. As a result, the city of Busan carried out the project efficiently by conserving 5 parks from sunset, a park area of 2.25km², and reducing land compensation and park construction costs by KRW 740 billion. Reinforcement of the public nature of the private-initiated park development project was suggested. However, due to the application of these systems and verification procedures, the project period is prolonged, and park services are delayed along with the financial burden on private operators.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.63-101
• /
• 2020

'Flight safety zone' means a zone that the Minister of National Defense designates under Articles 4 and 6 of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act (hereinafter 'PMBIA') for the safety of flight during takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. The purpose of flight safety zone is to contribute to the national security by providing necessary measures for the protection of military bases and installations and smooth conduct of military operations. In this case, when the state set and used the flight safety zone, the landowner claimed restitution of unjust enrichment against the country. This article is an analysis based on the existing legal theory regarding the legitimacy of plaintiff's claim, and the summary of the discussion is as follows. A person who without any legal ground derives a benefit from the property or services of another and thereby causes loss to the latter shall be bound to return such benefit (Article 741 of the Civil Act). Since the subject matter is an infringing profit, the defendant must prove that he has a legitimate right to retain the profit. The State reserves the right to use over the land designated as a flight safety zone in accordance with legitimate procedures established by the PMBIA for the safe takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State gained an unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent over the land without legal cause. Expropriation, use or restriction of private property from public necessity and compensation therefor shall be governed by Act: provided, that in such a case, just compensation shall be paid (Article 23 (1) of the Constitution of The Republic of KOREA). Since there is not any provision in the PMBIA for loss compensation for the case where a flight safety zone is set over land as in this case, next question would be whether or not it is unconstitutional. Even if it is designated as a flight safety zone and the use and profits of the land are limited, the justification of the purpose of the flight safety zone system, the appropriateness of the means, the minimization of infringement, and the balance of legal interests are still recognized; thus just not having any loss compensation clause does not make the act unconstitutional. In conclusion, plaintiff's claim for loss compensation based on the 'Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for land, etc. for Public Works Projects', which has no provision for loss compensation due to public limits, is unjust.