‘The Urban Development Act’ was enacted under the catch-phrase of “multidimensional and appropriate correspondence to the new diverse demands of urban development in the 21st century”, in order to respond to the problems arising from the urban development under the previous ‘Housing Site Development Promotion Act’. Also, the Urban Development Act is evaluated to have realized the considerable institutional evolution in the sense that it had designed the ‘urban development business by private sector’ as the alternative, enabling sustainable supply of urban land. According to the Urban Development Act, in the course of proposing the urban development area, the private sector can carry out their business as actual players and even have the right of eminent domain upon certain conditions. The urban development by the private sector as the main players can make up for the negative effect resulting from the previous urban development led by the public sector, specifically; the resistance by the citizens against the public sector's expropriating method of urban development, enhancement of private sector's technological skills and financing capabilities, and possibility of a creative urban development, getting out of standardized urban development etc. Furthermore, in the macroscopic aspect, the development by the private sector is in accord with the small government-oriented tendency, the private sector's improved participation in the public utilities, and the free flow of private capital due to the relaxed regulations, and neo-liberal trend such as the establishment of competition system between public and private sector etc. Nevertheless, despite these positive effects, many problems are pointed out, so in the matter of the right of eminent domain, whether to admit the public interest of the urban development business should be decided, considering the purpose, scale, and development plan; and public expropriation should be determined accordingly, while balancing public and private interest. Moreover, whether the institutions designed for the private sector's improved participation are highly effective or bring adverse effect is debatable.
In addition, private sector can develop a raw land it was supplied with; According to existing law, the supply of raw land institution under the Urban Development Act and the advance supply regulation according to the advance-supply of raw land of ‘the Bogeumjari Housing Construction Site Process’ under the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs are the examples. Both are the same in the sense that they can be supplied with and develop a raw land; however, different in the laws they are based on and the time stages when the supply occurs. In the case of the private sector's development of a raw land they are supplied with, ecofriendly and dimensional development is possible by establishing both land use plan and architectural plan; and a creative urban development can be induced by the relaxation of the initial funding, quick land supply, effective use of land through the whole development of land and building, and supply of land tailored to consumers. However, the problems caused accordingly should not be overlooked; especially, the institutional weakness must be examined and complemented based on the experience of the Amended Sejong City Act. It is evident that the positive effect can be anticipated by the private sector's participation in the urban development. Even so, it should be discussed in the perspective of securing public interest in the light of the distinctiveness of private sector. As the participation of private sector basically assumes profit maximization, in order to minimize the adverse effect, subject and scope should be determined so as to prevent the impairment of public interest; and the role of public sector is more than important in this respect.