Abstract
This study aims to review the differences in urban regeneration independently implemented by the government (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, MOLIT) and Seoul based on related laws and ordinances, and to draw out the implications of Korean urban regeneration's directions. The results are as follows. First, Seoul has constantly responded to the revision of the Urban Regeneration Act by adjusting and specifying the contents of ordinances, and especially, there have been efforts to enhance regional characteristics suitably for the circumstances of Seoul. Second, in the urban regeneration of Seoul, the budgets including the matching ratio of national and local subsidies shall be changed according to the standards of the MOLIT in changing designating places after the selection of the urban regeneration by the ministry, and this procedure and these implementation methods cause confusion to Seoul and local governments. Third, there were differences in the results of comparing the budgets and support methods of the "Gaggum Housing Project" of Seoul and "New Deal Housing Repair Project" of the MOLIT, which caused conflicts due to the differences in the project implementation and support standards, and the arbitrary interpretation of the guidelines. Although the urban regeneration greatly contributed to the revelation and conservation of regional characteristics, it might be necessary to establish systems that can enhance citizens' awareness and compensate the efficient contents needed for each region in the future.