경관의 이익보호에 관한 공법적 검토

While concerns on comfortable living environment, beautiful landscape and view with economic growth and improvement of cultural level have been increased, it has also caused frequent legal disputes against violation of profits of landscape from land development and super high-rise building permit. Profit of landscape and that of view were clearly distinguished as legal problems in Japan, but those were mixed or not distinguished and legal problems on the profit of landscape were rarely discussed in Korea. Therefore, this study examined whether the profit of landscape was distinguished from that of view and there was actual profit in distinguishing them or not. It also approached the profit of landscape protection from the view of public law, examined its legal tasks and made present and future generations enjoy well-preserved landscape. Concept of profit of landscape is more objective and broader value than that of view and its concept should be established to have concrete profit if its important and objective value is recognized as the profit of life by regulating the public interest and special landscape for making residents and people enjoy it. Profit of the landscape or legal property of landscape right should be understood as individual and concrete right derived from the right of environment guaranteed on the Constitution and in case that land right owners have enjoyed the landscape as the profit of their living, it can be understood from the view of land property right. To make the profit of landscape be recognized as an independent right of legal protection value, there should be compulsory laws and regulations of private profit protection on the profit of landscape, the landscape should be valuable and have an objective value, it should be continuously used as the profit of life, and the preservation of landscape should be good as the landscape with regional, cultural and historical characteristics for quite a long time. natural landscape impact negotiation system was managed in connection with environmental impact assessment system on the Natural Environment Conservation Act, but landscape impact system should be introduced to assess the urban and rural landscape impact by landscape investigation system and the harmony between land development and landscape should be sought. It was regulated that local governments with the population over a hundred thousand people had to make landscape plan and others did optionally. The landscape cannot be recovered once it was damaged and profit of landscape should be understood as having legal interest not reflective one and standing to sue should be extended to a third party as well as the party who was infringed from the protection of landscape profit. Environmental organization recognize the qualification under the approval of environmental dispute adjustment committee in the environmental dispute adjustment application, but it is desirable to acknowledge the group litigation against special environmental organizations on the specificity of environmental lawsuit. In addition, procedural participation of environmental organizations in establishment and decision of landscape planning should be guaranteed. Finally, disputes of prospect right and right to sunshine have been settled by environmental dispute adjustment committee, but since profit of landscape or infringement of right of landscape are not objects of environmental dispute adjustment under the current environmental dispute adjustment act, they are not subject to procedure for redemption of rights and the redemption of rights for the cases of infringement on the profit of landscape or right of landscape should be stipulated.