@article{ART001771938},
author={Jeong Hoe Gun},
title={A Possibility for Violation of Private Right due to An Urban Management Planning},
journal={Public Land Law Review},
issn={1226-251X},
year={2013},
volume={61},
pages={23-38}
TY - JOUR
AU - Jeong Hoe Gun
TI - A Possibility for Violation of Private Right due to An Urban Management Planning
JO - Public Land Law Review
PY - 2013
VL - 61
IS - null
PB - Korean Public Land Law Association
SP - 23
EP - 38
SN - 1226-251X
AB - When we talk about urban․county management planning, we discuss how an administrative agency develops, restores and preserves jurisdictions of local governments. Once any relevant plans are determined and announced on the record, consequential restrictions on acts are conducted directly onto the people, and that could cause human rights violations.
When any human rights violations are caused by the urbanㆍcounty management planning, interested victims are deserved to receive compensation and yet, with this current system, it is not easy for the victims to enjoy their right of this kind. In order to be saved by cancellation dispute and compensation in the current system, not only there should be a disposition by an administrative agency based on legislations, but also the disposition by the agency should be proved legal.
However, since the urbanㆍcounty management planning would not be built up on legislations and again, since the planning is only a manual to suggest directions of a future administration to achieve administrative goals, it is difficult to accept that as a disposition. In addition, even though the disposition is recognized, since the planning depends on any acts or words by the administrative agency, it is also hard to see if it follows the law or not. Add to that, the urbanㆍcounty management planning is merely what the administrative agency does as it would never be influenced by the people, and that makes it hard again to determine the legality. Hence, with the current system, we are hardly compensated for rights violations caused by urbanㆍcounty management planning.
However, even if that is true, we should not give up on the rights violation compensation. For that reason, it is definitely necessary for the government to accept the urbanㆍcounty management planning as a disposition while it determines any illegal dispositions so that the victims are well-treated by cancellation dispute or compensation. In addition, since the urbanㆍcounty management planning is an act that is achieved by agreements among relevant administrative agencies, advisory organs and opinions as well as proposals from the local, it needs to be determined legal so that the victims can receive loss compensation in case that their rights are restricted.
KW - urban;county management planning;administrative legislation;administrative act;discretion about administrative plan;proportionality;cancellation dispute
DO -
UR -
ER -
Jeong Hoe Gun. (2013). A Possibility for Violation of Private Right due to An Urban Management Planning. Public Land Law Review, 61, 23-38.
Jeong Hoe Gun. 2013, "A Possibility for Violation of Private Right due to An Urban Management Planning", Public Land Law Review, vol.61, pp.23-38.
Jeong Hoe Gun "A Possibility for Violation of Private Right due to An Urban Management Planning" Public Land Law Review 61 pp.23-38 (2013) : 23.
Jeong Hoe Gun. A Possibility for Violation of Private Right due to An Urban Management Planning. 2013; 61 23-38.
Jeong Hoe Gun. "A Possibility for Violation of Private Right due to An Urban Management Planning" Public Land Law Review 61(2013) : 23-38.
Jeong Hoe Gun. A Possibility for Violation of Private Right due to An Urban Management Planning. Public Land Law Review, 61, 23-38.
Jeong Hoe Gun. A Possibility for Violation of Private Right due to An Urban Management Planning. Public Land Law Review. 2013; 61 23-38.
Jeong Hoe Gun. A Possibility for Violation of Private Right due to An Urban Management Planning. 2013; 61 23-38.
Jeong Hoe Gun. "A Possibility for Violation of Private Right due to An Urban Management Planning" Public Land Law Review 61(2013) : 23-38.
