지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 연구보고서
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2011.12
- 수록면
- 1 - 167 (167page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The demand on the public space and facility is increasing but the public resources is not enough. If the betterment of the urban development can be recaptured, not only windfall of the development is prevented to be privatized but also citizen’s benefit may increase by the reinvestment in infrastructure and public facilities.
The study aims to investigate the Development Fee and the Contributed Acceptance as an institutional devices for the recapture of betterment. The study also tries to abstract the main issues for institutional improvement of betterment recapture.
The major findings are 1) the actual performances and shortcomings of development fee, 2) advantages and limits of contributed acceptance, and 3) comparative advantage of these measures.
Out of 23 Boroughs in Seoul, Development Fee are collected 166 billion KRW last 10 years which is only 0.02% of the increase of land price. The Development Fee are only levied on about 20~60 out of more than 10,000 projects per year.
In contrast, the Contributed Acceptance are done at the rate of 27.5% in Urban Redevelopment Projects and 17.5% in Urban Design District. The Contributed Acceptance consists of not only land for road, open space or park but also building or floor such as libraries. In spite of Contributed Acceptance is a kind of inducer’s burden, it customarily roles as a recapture devices of betterment.
Practically, in a smaller-scaled development, Development Fee that is calculated by the standardized equation is more effective because of the lower social cost for recapture. But in a larger-scaled development, there are few reasons to avoid investigating and forecasting the betterment case by case and requesting appropriate Contributed Acceptance.
The study suggests the concept of betterment which is defined as ‘the abnormal increase of land price’ should be less strict and the Development Fee should include the planning gains from rezoning. The study also recommends that the Contributed Acceptance might be more effective than the current Development Fee in larger-scaled development if associated with development agreement process between authority and developer.
The study aims to investigate the Development Fee and the Contributed Acceptance as an institutional devices for the recapture of betterment. The study also tries to abstract the main issues for institutional improvement of betterment recapture.
The major findings are 1) the actual performances and shortcomings of development fee, 2) advantages and limits of contributed acceptance, and 3) comparative advantage of these measures.
Out of 23 Boroughs in Seoul, Development Fee are collected 166 billion KRW last 10 years which is only 0.02% of the increase of land price. The Development Fee are only levied on about 20~60 out of more than 10,000 projects per year.
In contrast, the Contributed Acceptance are done at the rate of 27.5% in Urban Redevelopment Projects and 17.5% in Urban Design District. The Contributed Acceptance consists of not only land for road, open space or park but also building or floor such as libraries. In spite of Contributed Acceptance is a kind of inducer’s burden, it customarily roles as a recapture devices of betterment.
Practically, in a smaller-scaled development, Development Fee that is calculated by the standardized equation is more effective because of the lower social cost for recapture. But in a larger-scaled development, there are few reasons to avoid investigating and forecasting the betterment case by case and requesting appropriate Contributed Acceptance.
The study suggests the concept of betterment which is defined as ‘the abnormal increase of land price’ should be less strict and the Development Fee should include the planning gains from rezoning. The study also recommends that the Contributed Acceptance might be more effective than the current Development Fee in larger-scaled development if associated with development agreement process between authority and developer.
목차
[표지]
[요약 및 정책건의]
[목차]
표목차
그림목차
[제1장 연구개요]
제1절 연구의 배경 및 목적
제2절 연구의 범위와 방법
[제2장 개발이익 환수제도 현황]
제1절 개발이익 개념과 환수의 정당성
제2절 개발이익 환수제도 종류
제3절 개발이익 환수제도의 현황과 변화 추이
[제3장 개발부담금과 개발이익 환수]
제1절 서울시 개발부담금 부과 현황 조사
제2절 개발부담금의 환수실태
제3절 개발부담금의 한계
[제4장 기부채납과 개발이익 환수]
제1절 기부채납제도
제2절 기부채납의 운용 현황
제3절 기부채납과 개발이익 환수
제4절 기부채납의 쟁점
[제5장 해외의 개발이익 환수제도]
제1절 영국의 개발이익 환수제도
제2절 미국의 개발이익 환수제도
[제6장 개발이익 환수제도 개선 방향]
제1절 개발부담금과 기부채납의 적용성 비교
제2절 개발이익 환수대상 범위 확대
제3절 기부채납을 통한 개발이익 환수제도의 정착
[참고문헌]
[부록]
1. 개발부담금 부과 자료
2. 특별계획구역 기부채납비율
3. 주택건설사업(지구단위의제)
[영문요약(Abstract)]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
서울시 개발이익 환수제도 개선방향
김상일
,
안내영
정책리포트
2012
.04
개발이익환수제도에 관한 연구
임윤수
법학연구
2006
.02
공공기여의 질적 제고를 위한 기부채납 효용성에 관한 연구 : 서울시 도시계획구역을 중심으로
조희정
,
강준모
한국도시설계학회지 도시설계
2014
.08
개발이익환수 수단으로서 공공기여의 효과에 관한 연구 : 특별계획구역을 중심으로
유기현
,
변창흠
대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계
2011
.02
토지문제 진단과 개발이익 환수제도 개선 : 개발이익 환수제도에 대한 전문가 설문조사 결과
정희남
국토정책 Brief
2004
.02
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-359-000824267