| Title |
The Challenges and Solutions for Temporary Buildings |
| Authors |
배선혜(Bae, Sun-Hye) ; 이여경(Lee, Yeo-Kyung) ; 김민지(Kim, Min-Ji) |
| DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5659/JAIK.2023.39.9.15 |
| Keywords |
Temporary building; System improvement; Building Act; Actual Operation Status |
| Abstract |
While the issuance of permits and reports for temporary buildings has been steadily rising in recent years, complaints linked to them persist
due to the absence of well-defined legal benchmarks. To address these issues, this study scrutinizes civil grievances directed at the Ministry
of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, along with inquiries from officials and suggestions originating from local government representatives.
By examining these inputs, the analysis pinpoints shortcomings within the system’s operation and proposes improvements. Through an
exploration of both civil complaints and official perspectives, this study delineates three critical dimensions of concern: definition and scope,
retention period, and the management of unauthorized temporary buildings. First, ambiguity envelops the definition of temporary buildings,
leading to numerous disputes concerning the interpretation of pertinent laws and regulations. Second, a vast majority of temporary buildings
can essentially be employed indefinitely through successive extension requests within the stipulated validity period, thus effectively enabling
permanent utilization. Lastly, constraints are evident in the oversight of unauthorized temporary constructions. Although issues arise regarding
structures lacking proper permissions for those exceeding their permissible duration, actively managing these illegal structures proves
challenging due to the manpower constraints faced by local governments. To mitigate these institutional limitations, specific enhancements are
recommended for each concern. The first entails clarifying principles and standards for categorizing temporary buildings within the Building
Act. Next, establishing retention periods for temporary buildings should be guided by the features of facility type. Finally, continued efforts
in institutional responses are essential. This involves bolstering punitive regulations for unauthorized temporary structures, fortifying
administrative systems for efficient management, and sustaining comprehensive guidance and education on relevant procedures in tandem with
systemic reforms. |