메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국비교공법학회 공법학연구 공법학연구 제6권 제3호
발행연도
2005.12
수록면
301 - 321 (21page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
In the U.S, the Federal Constitution forbids taking of private property for public use without just compensation. This Clause implicitly allows the government's eminent domain power to condemn the private lands for public use. It is well-established that this constitutional guarantee is designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. According to the Federal Constitution, the Federal Government does not have the general police power to regulate the usage of land in the U.S. The State government has regulatory power to prevent public harms in private lands however. In addition to direct physical takings, the Court conceived regulatory takings for just compensation when government regulation went too far in the U.S. At direct physical takings, the government entities officially proceeded to condemn the land when the land owner was reluctant to transfer his ownership. The question was usually focused on how much should be paid to the land owner as just compensation at direct physical takings. At regulatory takings, the government entities implicitly intervene in private land ownerships with imposing land use regulations. Thus, the private land owner proceeds the inverse-condemnation action against the government entities. The courts considered several factors to determine whether a government regulation constitutes a regulatory takings. Those factors are (1) the character of the government regulation; (2) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; and (3) the extent to which the regulation had interfered with reasonable investment-backed expectation. The ripeness doctrine keeps off the courts' hasty intervention at government entity's regulatory power before its final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue. one of ripeness doctrine exceptions is doctrine of futility, which inhibits the government entities from using strategic run-around for denying the owner's lawful land use application. In Korea, the original land owner is allowed to ask the government to buy his own land when his land is designated as a green belt zone. American land owner's inverse condemnation proceedings would be a good reference for Korean land owner's asking the government to buy his own land.

목차

Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 사인의 역수용소송
Ⅲ. 성숙성의 원칙
Ⅳ. 무용의 법리(doctrine of futility)
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (21)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)

  • 헌법재판소 1989. 12. 22. 선고 88헌가13 전원재판부〔합헌 · 위헌〕

    1. 사유재산제도(私有財産制度)의 보장(保障)은 타인(他人)과 더불어 살아가야 하는 공동체생활(共同體生活)과의 조화(調和)와 균형(均衡)을 흐트려뜨리지 않는 범위(範圍) 내에서의 보장(保障)이다.

    자세히 보기

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-362-016081667