고도(古都) 보존 및 육성을 위한 법제의 문제점과 개선방안 = The Problems and Reformations on the Preservation and Development of a Ancient Capital

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Recently, there has been keen competition for the registration of resources to the ‘World Heritage List’, due to complex reasons that include the enhancement of national identity and superiority, the growth of a travel industry, and supports from UNESCO.
The World Heritage List, in spite of its relevance within historic and diplomatic issues among neighboring countries, calls for the active pursue of excavation and preservation of heritages. However, a number of requirements must be fulfilled to list as a World Cultural Heritage. Here, the authenticity within cultural heritage rises as a priority. It is being emphasized more than ever.
Another huge change is that the view of cultural heritage has been expanded from dot-perception to face-perception. While previous views concentrated on the preservation of cultural property itself, recent views show a more broad perception, concerning also the sites of such cultural importance. Combined with the development of local autonomy and emphasis on city competitiveness, this has led to a growing interest toward ancient capitals.
China enacted 「Historical and Cultural City Town Village Protection Ordinance」 to ensure the authenticity of cultural heritage and prevent the destruction of cultural heritage from urbanization in 2008. Japan legislated 「Act on the Preservation of the Historical Features of Ancient Capitals」 in 1966 which has been estimated to be successful.
Korea has significantly amended 「Act on the Preservation of the Ancient Capitals」 in July 2011. Consequently, the 「Act on Preserving and Promoting Ancient Capitals」, which newly added ‘Promoting’ to its title, will be enforced from July 2012.
This law not only covers the existing concept of ‘preserving’, but also includes modified systems under the new concept of ‘promoting’. However, inhabitants, who are in the areas where the new law would be enforced, are resisting to this amended law. Troubles are also found in seeking both ‘preserving’ and ‘promoting’ which are incompatible issues. Officers in charge are facing actual difficulty in finding a common ground between these two concepts.
In this background, this study analyzed the features and main points of this amendment. The legal systems of China and Japan, which have community of culture with Korea, are also consulted. Ultimately, this study seeks to handle issues of the 「Act on Preserving and Promoting the Ancient Capitals」 : confusion of concepts, designation of sites, characteristics of the plans, limits of act, along with budget matters.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 한국의 고도 보존ㆍ육성 법제 분석
• Ⅲ. 일본과 중국의 입법례
• Ⅳ. 고도 보존ㆍ육성 법제의 문제점과 개선방안
• Ⅴ. 결론
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 홍정선, "행정법원론(상)" 박영사 268-269, 2011
• 2 박균성, "행정법론(상) 제10판" 박영사 257-259, 2011
• 3 장교식, "일본의 문화재보호법제에 관한 고찰" 건국대학교 법학연구소 (16) : 2009
• 4 진영효, "익산시의 ｢고도보존법｣ 관련 조례 제정 방안" 27-, 2011
• 5 "유네스코 한국위원회 세계유산"
• 6 "고도보존특별법 개정안 반발"
• 7 조용기, "고도보존법의 한일간 비교연구" 대한관광경영학회 22 (22): 209-227, 2007
• 8 "고도보존법 개정안은 통과… 반응은 시큰둥"
• 9 강태호, "고도보존 및 육성에 관한 특별법의 이해" 4-, 2011
• 10 "경주 고도보존특별법 개악"
• 11 仇保兴, "历史文化名镇名村保护的迫切性" 中国名城 5-6, 2011
• 12 谢广山, "历史文化名城名镇名村保护条例—中国历史文化遗产保护的新阶段" 文物世界 51-52, 2010