• 제목/요약/키워드: regional studies

검색결과 2,222건 처리시간 0.022초

산림보험(山林保險)에 관한 연구(硏究) (A Study on Forest Insurance)

  • 박태식
    • 한국산림과학회지
    • /
    • 제15권1호
    • /
    • pp.1-38
    • /
    • 1972
  • 우리나라는 근래(近來) 고도경제성장(高度經濟成長)으로 인(因)하여 목재수요(木材需要)가 급증(急增)하고 있으나 국내생산재(國內生産材)가 공급율(供給率)은 수요량(需要量)의 20% 정도(程度)에 지나지 않아 많은 외재(外在)를 도입(導入)하고 있으므로 장래(將來)의 목재(木材) 수요공급(需要供給)의 균형(均衡)을 이룩하기 위하여 강력(强力)한 산림자원(山林資源) 조성사업(造成事業)의 추진(推進)이 요망(要望)된다. 산림자원(山林資源) 조성사업(造成事業)을 추진(推進)하는데 있어서 가장 중요(重要)한 것은 조림의욕(造林意慾)을 높이고 조림사업(造林事業)에 필요(必要)한 산업자본(産業資本)을 산림(山林)에 유치(誘致)하도록 하는 일인데, 이러한 역할(役割)을 할 수 있는 경제적시설(經濟的施設)의 하나가 산림보험제도(山林保險制度)의 실시(實施)인 것이다. 산림보험(山林保險)을 실시(實施)하면 산림재해(山林災害)가 보상(補償)되므로 자본가(資本家)는 안심(安心)하고 조림투자(造林投資)를 할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 산림(山林)을 담보(擔保)로 한 금융(金融)의 길도 열리어 투자(投資)한 산림(山林)에 환금성(換金性)이 주어지므로 산업자본가(産業資本家)가 산림투자(山林投資)를 회피(回避)하지 않게 되어 산림자원(山林資源) 조성사업(造成事業)이 촉진(促進)될 수 있다. 이러한 관점(觀點)에서 외국(外國)에서는 19세기말(世紀末)부터 산림보험제도(山林保險制度)가 실시(實施)되기 시작(始作)하여 주요(主要) 임업선진국(林業先進國)에서는 모두 산림보험(山林保險)을 실시(實施)하고 있는 것이다. 산림보험(山林保險)을 실시(實施)하는데 있어서 가장 중요(重要)한 것은 장기간(長期間)에 걸친 산림재해(山林災害)의 통계자료(統計資料)를 정확(正確)히 조사(調査)하는 일과 그 나라의 여건(與件)에 맞는 산림보험제도(山林保險制度)를 창설(創設)하는 일이다. 과거(過去) 10년간(年間)(1961~1970)의 년평균(年平均) 산림재해상황(山林災害狀況)을 조사(調査)한 결과(結果)는 산림화재(山林火災)가 9,000여정보(餘町步), 곤충피해(昆蟲被害)가 570,000정보(町步), 병균피해(病菌被害)가 694정보(町步)로 나타났다. 특(特)히 그중 외국(外國)의 산림보험(山林保險)에서 재해보상(災害補償) 대상(對象)의 으뜸이 되고 있는 산림화재(山林火災) 피해상황(被害狀況)을 과거(過去) 18년간(年間)(1953~1970)에 걸쳐서 조사(調査)한 결과(結果)에 의하면 산화면적(山火面積) 위험율(危險率)이 $\frac{1.1853}{1,000}$였고 1960~1969년(年) 사이의 전국(全國) 산림화재면적(山林火災面積) 위험율(危險率)은 $\frac{1.3045}{1,000}$로서 유우럽에 비(比)하여 높았으나 일본(日本)에 비(比)하여 그리 높지 않았다. 또 과거(過去) 5년간(年間)(1966~1970)의 전국(全國)의 산화재적(山火材積) 위험율(危險率)은 $\frac{0.1991}{1,000}$로서 대단(大端)히 낮은데 이것은 우리나라 산림(山林)의 축적(蓄積)이 빈약(貧弱)한데서 온 결과(結果)였다. 이러한 산림재해상황(山林災害狀況)에 비추어 우리나라에서 산림보험(山林保險)을 실시(實施)하려면 어떠한 내용(內容)의 산림보험제도(山林保險制度)를 설립(設立)하는 것이 좋겠는가 하는 질문조사(質問調査)의 결과(結果)는 다음과 같았다. 1. 산림보험(山林保險)의 필요성(必要性) 산림보험(山林保險)은 산림담보(山林擔保)에 의(依)한 금융(金融)의 길을 열어주고(5.65%), 산림피해(山林被害)를 당(當)하였을 때 재조림비(再造林費)를 확보(確保)하게 하여(35.87%), 조림투자(造林投資)를 보증(保證)하는 수단(手段)(46.74%)으로 반드시 실시(實施)되어야 한다고 응답(應答)하였다. 2. 산림보험법(山林保險法) 산림(山林)의 특수성(特殊性)에 비추어 일반(一般) 손해보험(損害保險) 규정(規程)을 준용(準用)할 것이 아니라(8.35%), 산림보험(山林保險)을 위한 특별볍(特別法)을 제정(制定)하여야 한다고 응답(應答)하였다(88.26%). 3. 보험경영업체(保險經營業體)의 종류(種類) 일반(一般) 보험회사(保險會社)(17.42%)나 산림소유자(山林所有者) 상호조합(相互組合)(23.53%)에서 산림보험(山林保險)을 취급(取扱)할 수도 있겠으나, 산림보험(山林保險)의 특이성(特異性)에 비추어 국(國) 공영산림보험(公營山林保險)의 별도(別途)로 운영(運營)되어야 한다고 반응(反應)하였다(56.18%). 4. 보험사고(保險事故)의 종류(種類) 산림보험(山林保險) 사고(事故)를 산화(山火)에 국한(局限)시키거나(23.38%), 산화(山火) 및 기상해(氣象害)만을 포함(包含)시키면 된다는 의견(意見)도 있으나(14.32%), 산림보험(山林保險) 사고(事故)에 산화(山火), 기상해(氣象害), 병충해(病蟲害)까지 포함(包含)시켜야 한다는 의견(意見)이 가장 많았다(60.68%). 5. 보험사고(保險事故) 취급대상(取扱對象)의 종류(種類) 산림보험(山林보험) 취급대상(取扱對象) 수종(樹種)은 침엽수(針葉樹) 인공림(人工林)에 한정(限定)시키거나(13.47%), 침엽수(針葉樹)와 활엽수(濶葉樹)의 인공림(人工林)만을 포함(包含)시키기를 원(願)하는 반응자(反應者)도 있었으나(23.74%), 많은 반응자(反應者)가 수종(樹種), 임종(林種)(인공(人工), 천연(天然)) 구별(區別)없이 모두 포함(包含)시켜야 된다고 반응(反應)하였다(61.64%). 6. 보험사고(保險事故) 취급대상(取扱對象)의 범위(範圍) 산림보험(山林保險) 사고(事故) 취급대상(取扱對象) 범위(範圍)는 10년(年) 이하(以下)의 유령림(幼齡林)만 취급(取扱)하기를 원(願)하는 자(者)(15.23%), 20년(年) 이하(以下)의 임목(林木)만을 대상(對象)으로 하면 족(足)하다는 반응자(反應者)가 있었으나(32.95%), 많은 반응자(反應者)가 40년생(年生) 이하(以下)의 임목(林木)까지 포함(包含)하기를 바라고 있었다(46.37%). 7. 보험계약(保險契約) 기간(期間) 산림보험(山林保險) 계약기간(契約期間)은 1년(年) 단위(單位)가 좋다는 자(者)도 상당(相當)히 있었으나(31.74%), 과반수(過半數)가 5년(年) 단위(單位)로 계약(契約)하는 것을 바라고 있었다(58.68%). 8. 보험계약(保險契約)의 제한(制限) 5정보(町步) 미만(未滿)의 소면적(小面積)은 산림보험(山林保險) 대상(對象)에서 제외(除外)하고(20.78%), 단위(單位) 면적당(面積當) 일정(一定) 재적(材積) 또는 주수(株數)를 보유(保有)하고 있는 산림(山林)만을 계약대상(契約對象)으로 하는 것이 좋다고 반응(反應)하였다(63.77%). 9. 계약방법(契約方法) 산림보험(山林保險) 계약방법(契約方法)은 임의(任意)로 산림(山林)을 선택(選擇)하여 계약(契約)하기를 원(願)하는 자(者)(32.13%), 임의(任意)로 계약(契約)하되 소유산림(所有山林) 전체(全體)를 일괄(一括) 계약(契約)하도록 하는 방법(方法)을 택(擇)하여야 한다는 자(者)(33.48%), 특정임지(特定林地)(신식지(新植地), 보조조림지(補助造林地), 고가임지(高價林地))는 의무적(義務的)으로 계약(契約)하도록 하여야 한다는 반응자(反應者)(31.92%)로 나타나 비슷한 반응(反應)을 보였다. 10. 보험료율(保險料率) 산림보험(山林保險) 요율(料率)은 지역(地域)에 따르는 위험정도(危險程度)를 참작(參酌)하여 면적비례(面積比例)로 결정(決定)하여야 한다는 의견(意見)(31.59%)과 지역(地域) 위험율(危險率)을 참작(參酌)하여 보험가액(保險價額)에 따라 정(定)해야 한다는 의견(意見)이 있었으나(31.59%), 우리 나라에는 지역적(地域的) 위험율(危險率)에 큰 차이(差異)가 없을 것이므로 전국(全國) 일률적(一律的)인 보험료(保險料)를 보험가액(保險價額)에 따라 정(定)하기를 원(願)하는 경향(傾向)이 높았다(39.55%). 11. 보험료(保險料)의 납부(納付) 산림보험료(山林保險料)는 단기(短期)는 일시불(一時拂), 장기(長期)는 매년(每年) 납부(納付)하게 하는 의견(意見)도 있으나(13.80%), 단기(短期)는 고율(高率), 장기(長期)는 저율(低率)로 하되 단기(短期), 장기(長期)를 막론(莫論)하고 매년(每年) 납부(納付)하도록 하여야 한다고 반응(反應)하였다(86.71%). 12. 보험사무(保險事務) 취급기관(取扱機關) 산림보험(山林保險) 사무(事務)의 취급(取扱) 즉(即) 창구업무(窓口業務)의 취급(取扱)을 산림행정기관(山林行政機關)에 위탁(委託)하거나(18.75%), 일반(一般) 보험회사(保險會社)에 맡기기보다는(35.76%) 산림조합(山林組合)에 위탁(委託) 취급(取扱)하게 하고 보험료(保險料)의 일정율(一定率)을 환부(還付)해주는 것이 좋다고 반응(反應)하였다(44.22%). 13. 손해보상(損害補償)의 한도(限度) 산림보험(山林保險)의 손해보상(損害補償)은 유령림(幼齡林)이 피해(被害)를 입었을 때에는 재조림비(再造林費)를 한도(限度)로 하여 보상(補償)하는 것을 원칙(原則)으로 하고 성림(成林)의 경우(境遇)에는 손해액(損害額)의 80%정도(程度)를 한도(限度)로 하여 보상(補償)하기 보다는(29.70%) 실손(實損) 현재가액(現在價額)을 보상(補償)하거나(31.07%) 조림비(造林費)의 복리계산(複利計算) 합계액(合計額)을 보상(補償)하는 것을 바라고 있었다(36.99%). 14. 보험기금(保險基金)의 조성(造成) 산림보험(山林保險)의 기금조성(基金造成)은 손해(損害) 보상액(補償額)에서 일정액(一定額)을 공제(控除) 적립(積立)하여 조성(造成)하거나(15.65%), 임야세(林野稅)를 신설(新設)하여 기금(基金)을 확보(確保)하기 보다는(33.79%), 산림보험(山林保險) 무사고(無事故)로 인(因)한 잉여금(剩餘金)에서 일정액(一定額)씩을 적립(積立)하여 산림보험기금(山林保險基金)으로 하자는 의견(意見)에 많은 반응(反應)을 하였다(44.81%). 15. 산화(山火)의 원인(原因) 산림관계직(山林關係職)에 종사(從事)하고 있는 사람들의 과거(過去)의 경험(經驗)에 비추어 본 우리나라 산화(山火)의 주요원인(主要原因)은 실화(失火)(원인불명(原因不明), 32.39%), 담배불(28.89%), 화전(火田)(19.85%)에 의한 것으로 나타났는데 산림통계(山林統計)에 나타나 있는 산화(山火)의 주요원인(主要原因)과 일치(一致)하였다. 16. 산화경방(山火警防) 산림화재(山林火災) 경방조치(警防措置)로서 가장 중요(重要)하고 실효성(實効性)이 있으며 실천(實踐)할 수 있는 삼대대책(三大對策)으로는 (1) 방화선(防火線) 설치(設置)(23.84%), (2) 건조기(乾燥期)의 입산금지(入山禁止)(21.10%), (3) 메스콤에 의한 계몽교육(啓蒙敎育)(18.01%)이라고 반응(反應)하였다.

  • PDF

한국전쟁의 교훈과 대비 -병력수(兵力數) 및 부대수(部隊數)를 중심으로- (The lesson From Korean War)

  • 윤일영
    • 안보군사학연구
    • /
    • 통권8호
    • /
    • pp.49-168
    • /
    • 2010
  • Just before the Korean War, the total number of the North Korean troops was 198,380, while that of the ROK(Republic of Korea) army troops 105,752. That is, the total number of the ROK army troops at that time was 53.3% of the total number of the North Korean army. As of December 2008, the total number of the North Korean troops is estimated to be 1,190,000, while that of the ROK troops is 655,000, so the ROK army maintains 55.04% of the total number of the North Korean troops. If the ROK army continues to reduce its troops according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the total number of its troops will be 517,000 m 2020. If North Korea maintains the current status(l,190,000 troops), the number of the ROK troops will be 43.4% of the North Korean army. In terms of units, just before the Korean War, the number of the ROK army divisions and regiments was 80% and 44.8% of North Korean army. As of December 2008, North Korea maintains 86 divisions and 69 regiments. Compared to the North Korean army, the ROK army maintains 46 Divisions (53.4% of North Korean army) and 15 regiments (21.3% of North Korean army). If the ROK army continue to reduce the military units according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of ROK army divisions will be 28(13 Active Division, 4 Mobilization Divisions and 11 Local Reserve Divisions), while that of the North Korean army will be 86 in 2020. In that case, the number of divisions of the ROK army will be 32.5% of North Korean army. During the Korean war, North Korea suddenly invaded the Republic of Korea and occupied its capital 3 days after the war began. At that time, the ROK army maintained 80% of army divisions, compared to the North Korean army. The lesson to be learned from this is that, if the ROK army is forced to disperse its divisions because of the simultaneous invasion of North Korea and attack of guerrillas in home front areas, the Republic of Korea can be in a serious military danger, even though it maintains 80% of military divisions of North Korea. If the ROK army promotes the plans in [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of military units of the ROK army will be 32.5% of that of the North Korean army. This ratio is 2.4 times lower than that of the time when the Korean war began, and in this case, 90% of total military power should be placed in the DMZ area. If 90% of military power is placed in the DMZ area, few troops will be left for the defense of home front. In addition, if the ROK army continues to reduce the troops, it can allow North Korea to have asymmetrical superiority in military force and it will eventually exert negative influence on the stability and peace of the Korean peninsular. On the other hand, it should be reminded that, during the Korean War, the Republic of Korea was attacked by North Korea, though it kept 53.3% of troops, compared to North Korea. It should also be reminded that, as of 2008, the ROK army is defending its territory with the troops 55.04% of North Korea. Moreover, the national defense is assisted by 25,120 troops of the US Forces in Korea. In case the total number of the ROK troops falls below 43.4% of the North Korean army, it may cause social unrest about the national security and may lead North Korea's misjudgement. Besides, according to Lanchester strategy, the party with weaker military power (60% compared to the party with stronger military power) has the 4.1% of winning possibility. Therefore, if we consider the fact that the total number of the ROK army troops is 55.04% of that of the North Korean army, the winning possibility of the ROK army is not higher than 4.1%. If the total number of ROK troops is reduced to 43.4% of that of North Korea, the winning possibility will be lower and the military operations will be in critically difficult situation. [Military Reform Plan 2020] rums at the reduction of troops and units of the ground forces under the policy of 'select few'. However, the problem is that the financial support to achieve this goal is not secured. Therefore, the promotion of [Military Reform Plan 2020] may cause the weakening of military defence power in 2020. Some advanced countries such as Japan, UK, Germany, and France have promoted the policy of 'select few'. However, what is to be noted is that the national security situation of those countries is much different from that of Korea. With the collapse of the Soviet Unions and European communist countries, the military threat of those European advanced countries has almost disappeared. In addition, the threats those advanced countries are facing are not wars in national level, but terrorism in international level. To cope with the threats like terrorism, large scaled army trops would not be necessary. So those advanced European countries can promote the policy of 'select few'. In line with this, those European countries put their focuses on the development of military sections that deal with non-military operations and protection from unspecified enemies. That is, those countries are promoting the policy of 'select few', because they found that the policy is suitable for their national security environment. Moreover, since they are pursuing common interest under the European Union(EU) and they can form an allied force under NATO, it is natural that they are pursing the 'select few' policy. At present, NATO maintains the larger number of troops(2,446,000) than Russia(l,027,000) to prepare for the potential threat of Russia. The situation of japan is also much different from that of Korea. As a country composed of islands, its prime military focus is put on the maritime defense. Accordingly, the development of ground force is given secondary focus. The japanese government promotes the policy to develop technology-concentrated small size navy and air-forces, instead of maintaining large-scaled ground force. In addition, because of the 'Peace Constitution' that was enacted just after the end of World War II, japan cannot maintain troops more than 240,000. With the limited number of troops (240,000), japan has no choice but to promote the policy of 'select few'. However, the situation of Korea is much different from the situations of those countries. The Republic of Korea is facing the threat of the North Korean Army that aims at keeping a large-scale military force. In addition, the countries surrounding Korea are also super powers containing strong military forces. Therefore, to cope with the actual threat of present and unspecified threat of future, the importance of maintaining a carefully calculated large-scale military force cannot be denied. Furthermore, when considering the fact that Korea is in a peninsular, the Republic of Korea must take it into consideration the tradition of continental countries' to maintain large-scale military powers. Since the Korean War, the ROK army has developed the technology-force combined military system, maintaining proper number of troops and units and pursuing 'select few' policy at the same time. This has been promoted with the consideration of military situation in the Koran peninsular and the cooperation of ROK-US combined forces. This kind of unique military system that cannot be found in other countries can be said to be an insightful one for the preparation for the actual threat of North Korea and the conflicts between continental countries and maritime countries. In addition, this kind of technology-force combined military system has enabled us to keep peace in Korea. Therefore, it would be desirable to maintain this technology-force combined military system until the reunification of the Korean peninsular. Furthermore, it is to be pointed out that blindly following the 'select few' policy of advanced countries is not a good option, because it is ignoring the military strategic situation of the Korean peninsular. If the Republic of Korea pursues the reduction of troops and units radically without consideration of the threat of North Korea and surrounding countries, it could be a significant strategic mistake. In addition, the ROK army should keep an eye on the fact the European advanced countries and Japan that are not facing direct military threats are spending more defense expenditures than Korea. If the ROK army reduces military power without proper alternatives, it would exert a negative effect on the stable economic development of Korea and peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsular. Therefore, the desirable option would be to focus on the development of quality of forces, maintaining proper size and number of troops and units under the technology-force combined military system. The tableau above shows that the advanced countries like the UK, Germany, Italy, and Austria spend more defense expenditure per person than the Republic of Korea, although they do not face actual military threats, and that they keep achieving better economic progress than the countries that spend less defense expenditure. Therefore, it would be necessary to adopt the merits of the defense systems of those advanced countries. As we have examined, it would be desirable to maintain the current size and number of troops and units, to promote 'select few' policy with increased defense expenditure, and to strengthen the technology-force combined military system. On the basis of firm national security, the Republic of Korea can develop efficient policies for reunification and prosperity, and jump into the status of advanced countries. Therefore, the plans to reduce troops and units in [Military Reform Plan 2020] should be reexamined. If it is difficult for the ROK army to maintain its size of 655,000 troops because of low birth rate, the plans to establish the prompt mobilization force or to adopt drafting system should be considered for the maintenance of proper number of troops and units. From now on, the Republic of Korean government should develop plans to keep peace as well as to prepare unexpected changes in the Korean peninsular. For the achievement of these missions, some options can be considered. The first one is to maintain the same size of military troops and units as North Korea. The second one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea in terms of military force index. The third one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea, with the combination of the prompt mobilization force and the troops in active service under the system of technology-force combined military system. At present, it would be not possible for the ROK army to maintain such a large-size military force as North Korea (1,190,000 troops and 86 units). So it would be rational to maintain almost the same level of military force as North Korea with the combination of the troops on the active list and the prompt mobilization forces. In other words, with the combination of the troops in active service (60%) and the prompt mobilization force (40%), the ROK army should develop the strategies to harmonize technology and forces. The Korean government should also be prepared for the strategic flexibility of USFK, the possibility of American policy change about the location of foreign army, radical unexpected changes in North Korea, the emergence of potential threat, surrounding countries' demand for Korean force for the maintenance of regional stability, and demand for international cooperation against terrorism. For this, it is necessary to develop new approaches toward the proper number and size of troops and units. For instance, to prepare for radical unexpected political or military changes in North Korea, the Republic of Korea should have plans to protect a large number of refugees, to control arms and people, to maintain social security, and to keep orders in North Korea. From the experiences of other countries, it is estimated that 115,000 to 230,000 troops, plus ten thousands of police are required to stabilize the North Korean society, in the case radical unexpected military or political change happens in North Korea. In addition, if the Republic of Korea should perform the release of hostages, control of mass destruction weapons, and suppress the internal wars in North Korea, it should send 460,000 troops to North Korea. Moreover, if the Republic of Korea wants to stop the attack of North Korea and flow of refugees in DMZ area, at least 600,000 troops would be required. In sum, even if the ROK army maintains 600,000 troops, it may need additional 460,000 troops to prepare for unexpected radical changes in North Korea. For this, it is necessary to establish the prompt mobilization force whose size and number are almost the same as the troops in active service. In case the ROK army keeps 650,000 troops, the proper number of the prompt mobilization force would be 460,000 to 500,000.

  • PDF