소방시설기준적용의 특례제도에 관한 비교법적 연구 - 한일간의 비교를 중심으로 -

Abstract Even when regulations under fire-related laws are made stricter in response to changes in social conditions, Japan and South Korea have decided, as a legislative policy, to basically apply the old laws to "existing buildings" and buildings under construction (or new buildings, etc.), taking into consideration the administrative objectives of the new laws and the adjustment of the vested rights of building owners. However, although both Korea and Japan have exceptions and apply new laws retroactively without recognizing special cases, there appear to be many differences in terms of specifically which cases are recognized as special cases and which cases are not. Therefore, if it look at the differences and Suggestions that arise from them, find the following. First, in Japan, Extension of a building are included in the special provisions, but in Korea, Extension of a building are not included. IIn other words, it can be seen that Japan's legislative stance regarding extensions of bulding is more relaxed than Korea's legislative stance, but if, as in Korea, special provisions are not applied provisions and retroactive application is allowed for buildings currently under construction, it would probably be said that since the building owner of a Specific fire building would have incurred large expenses in stages such as acquiring land and creating blueprints, it is only natural that the building owner's expenditures in the planning and construction of the building should be protected as a vested right. Therefore, special provisions are not applied provisions may violate the principle of trust protection. Because it is difficult to find a logical reason why extensions should be Treat unfavorably. than new construction. Furthermore, if as the Fire Service Facilities Act of south korea requires that the entire fire service facility be equipped with fire service facilities even if only an extension of 3.3 m2 is made, extensions remodeling, which are currently recognized as effective, will inevitably be restricted. Therefore, the legislative example in Japan, where fire safety facility regulations are tightened when expanding buildings that would result in a large number of casualties in the event of a fire, but previous regulations are applied in certain cases when expanding buildings that would not otherwise, is one suggestive point that can serve as a reference. Second, in Korea, the retroactive effect is granted to reconstructions carried out after the revised laws come into effect, without any restrictions, just like new constructions or previous constructions, whereas in Japan, there are certain restrictions on retroactive application. However, as stated in Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Korean Building Act, "reconstruction" refers to the construction of a new building when it has been destroyed by a natural disaster or other calamity. However, if special exceptions are not granted to reconstruction after the new law comes into effect, as was the case with new construction and before, and the strengthened fire protection facility laws and regulations are applied without exception, this would also violate the principle of protecting trust. Therefore, it seems necessary to take inspiration from examples where reconstruction is treated differently from new construction and relocation, as in Japan. Third, while Japan allows the retroactive application of strengthened revised standards to all "specific fire prevention objects," Korea only allows the retroactive application to certain fire prevention facilities, such as medical facilities, facilities for the elderly and children, and utility and underground sewers. However, in order to cover specific fire-fighting objects where a large number of casualties are expected, it seems necessary to expand the scope of specific fire-fighting objects to which retroactive application can be applied, as in Japan. However, if the new laws were to be applied retroactively to all Specific fire building and all facilities, it would impose a heavy burden on business owners, so it is necessary to actively consider legislative measures such as loans for installation costs and the development of flexible alternative measures, as is done in Japan.