@article{ART001140462},
author={Park Tae-hyun},
title={Rethinking on 『the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Owner』- Focusing on US Supreme Court's Decisions on Whether Economic Development Taking is Constitutionality -},
journal={Public Land Law Review},
issn={1226-251X},
year={2008},
volume={40},
pages={45-68}
TY - JOUR
AU - Park Tae-hyun
TI - Rethinking on 『the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Owner』- Focusing on US Supreme Court's Decisions on Whether Economic Development Taking is Constitutionality -
JO - Public Land Law Review
PY - 2008
VL - 40
IS - null
PB - Korean Public Land Law Association
SP - 45
EP - 68
SN - 1226-251X
AB - While Eminent Domain Power has been traditionally recognised as the authority of such public entities as Government, acts that allow property to be taken for the private entity tend to increase,. “The principle of public necessity” under constitution does not mean that public entities are entitled to exercise of Eminent Domain exclusively.
Many opinions over at what circumstances it is permitted to exercise of Eminent Domain for the private have been presented because there is no guarantee of the
public nature of taking for the private owner, which are that Eminent Domain is allowed restrictively provided that legal and institutional arrangements to warrant public character of taking exist.
These opinions are not persuasive in full degree in that the arrangements as the foregoing didn't ensure that economical and/or societal public benefits such as obvious increment in the level of employment or local and/or sectoral improvement of economic structure would be achieved. Differently, following argument of dissenting opinion at kelo case is very persuasive: “...Thus a public purpose was realized when the harmful use was eliminated. Because each taking directly achieved public benefit it did not matter that the property was turned over to porcate use”
If agreed that whether ‘principle of public necessity’ is met or not depends not on what entity of Eminent Domain but on existence and realization of public necessity, taking for the private is coincidental to public necessity so long as the taking directly serve public purpose through achievement of public benefits. In light of this perspective purported ‘direct contribution test’ would be a valid standard in the determination of whether taking for the private satisfy public necessity requirement provided by article 23 of constitution.
KW - 공용침해(Eminent Domain Power);공공목적(public purpose);공적 사용(public use);경제개발수용(Economic Development Taking);공공필요의 원칙(principle of public necessity)
DO -
UR -
ER -
Park Tae-hyun. (2008). Rethinking on 『the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Owner』- Focusing on US Supreme Court's Decisions on Whether Economic Development Taking is Constitutionality -. Public Land Law Review, 40, 45-68.
Park Tae-hyun. 2008, "Rethinking on 『the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Owner』- Focusing on US Supreme Court's Decisions on Whether Economic Development Taking is Constitutionality -", Public Land Law Review, vol.40, pp.45-68.
Park Tae-hyun "Rethinking on 『the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Owner』- Focusing on US Supreme Court's Decisions on Whether Economic Development Taking is Constitutionality -" Public Land Law Review 40 pp.45-68 (2008) : 45.
Park Tae-hyun. Rethinking on 『the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Owner』- Focusing on US Supreme Court's Decisions on Whether Economic Development Taking is Constitutionality -. 2008; 40 45-68.
Park Tae-hyun. "Rethinking on 『the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Owner』- Focusing on US Supreme Court's Decisions on Whether Economic Development Taking is Constitutionality -" Public Land Law Review 40(2008) : 45-68.
Park Tae-hyun. Rethinking on 『the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Owner』- Focusing on US Supreme Court's Decisions on Whether Economic Development Taking is Constitutionality -. Public Land Law Review, 40, 45-68.
Park Tae-hyun. Rethinking on 『the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Owner』- Focusing on US Supreme Court's Decisions on Whether Economic Development Taking is Constitutionality -. Public Land Law Review. 2008; 40 45-68.
Park Tae-hyun. Rethinking on 『the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Owner』- Focusing on US Supreme Court's Decisions on Whether Economic Development Taking is Constitutionality -. 2008; 40 45-68.
Park Tae-hyun. "Rethinking on 『the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Owner』- Focusing on US Supreme Court's Decisions on Whether Economic Development Taking is Constitutionality -" Public Land Law Review 40(2008) : 45-68.
