골재채취단지 관리원가산정의 문제점과 개선방안

In this study, we looked for potential key issues and methods of improving them when calculating the aggregate extraction agency’s management costs based on the documents. The summary of this study’s results are as follows: 1) In the case of the costs for the development of aggregate extraction techniques, these costs would have to fall under the category of personnel costs, since excess funds would be distributed as bonuses. 2) Based on previous experience in the early stages of aggregate extraction, it is appropriate to allocate funds according to the permitted total extraction amount. 3) Each agency should calculate personnel costs by their tally of total directly participating personnel, and they should calculate the personnel costs of indirectly participating personnel by the size of aggregate extraction area. However, it may be more logical to allocate costs by reverting the direct costs to each respective agency and calculating indirect costs by the size of aggregate extraction area, etc. 4) After examining the breakdown of the member levels pay grades of each “B” aggregate extraction area, it is reasonable to calculate personnel costs for the average pay grade of each agency while taking account of the actual percentage increases in company “A” in the past. 5) It would be more practical for company “A” to use three-year corporate bond yields for capital costs. On one hand, the capital is available from the time it is invested, before the aggregate extraction agencies designate the funding; as such, the capital costs can be included in the agency management costs. This is a study on the real case of estimating the management costs for the company A’s “B” aggregate extraction area that has not yet been carried out. Through this case analysis, we have examined the issues that have consistently occurred in the past when calculating the management costs for aggregate extraction agencies and have provided suggestions for improvement.