정비사업의 시공자 선정과 형사처벌 ; The Selection of Constructor in Improvement Project and Criminal Penalties

The Urban and Living Environment Improvement Act (hereinafter called Urban Improvement Act), which was originally enacted in the course of consolidating reconstruction and redevelopment to prevent domestic real estate market from any overheat induced by reconstruction, stipulates builder as constructor and also provides that the constructor should be selected after project authorization. By way of follow-up revisions, the Urban Improvement Act has added criminal penalty provision related to the selection of constructor (on Mar. 18, 2005), and Framework Act on Construction Industry has also established reference provisions on criminal penalties and business suspension (Article 38-2, 95-2 and 83: on May 26, 2005). These provisions are also applicable partially to redevelopment and urban environmental Improvement project, but are originally established for the main purpose of reconstruction. However, restrictive provisions related to selection of constructor often fail to come in harmony with provisions related to joint developer of redevelopment, and even excessively overlook the real mechanisms of market. That is why there are many evasions or even violations of the restrictive provisions on the selection of constructor. Although various disadvantageous sanctions or criminal penalties should be applied to those cases, it is necessary to give a clear-cut explanation on possible applications of law and relationships between Urban Improvement Act and Framework Act on Construction Industry. In Urban Improvement Act, restrictive provision on selection of constructor is originally prepared as a part of banning constructor from development. But in. ; 이 논문은 서울대학교 법학발전재단 출연 법학연구소 기금의 2007학년도 학술연구비 의 보조를 받았음.