• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.52 no.4
• /
• pp.78-103
• /
• 2019

The Conservation Decree of the Chosun Treasures Historic and Natural Monuments (hereinafter referred to as the Conservation Decree), which was enacted during the Japanese colonial period, was preserved in accordance with the provisions of article No. 100 of the constitutional law. However, legislative attempts were made to replace the Conservation Decree during the US military administration and early Korean Government. The first attempt was about the National Treasures Historic and Natural Monuments which were brought in by the Legislative Assembly of South Chosun (1947) during the US military administration. The second was a bill by the government for preservation of historical interests (1950), which was submitted to the National Assembly on March 15, 1950 (the so-called Preservation Act (1950)). These two bills were amended and supplemented on the basis of the existing contents of the Conservation Decree. Afterwards, from 1952 to 1960, the legislation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (1959) and the Cultural Heritage Bill (1960) were subsequently introduced and enacted. The government's attempt to enact such a cultural property bill was aimed at the legislature to replace the preservation order system that had been in effect since the Japanese colonial period. However, due to the political situation at the time, these laws did not reach final legislation. In October 1960, the government enacted the Regulations for the Preservation of Cultural Property, which was an administrative edict that was promulgated and enacted in November. This was the first official cultural property decree introduced by the Korean government. With the enactment and promulgation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in January 1962, Korea's judicial cultural property legislation was established, based on the Korean government's unremitting efforts and experience in legislation of cultural property. In that context, the Cultural Heritage Protection Act is a historical product. The Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which was enacted in 1962, is known to emulate or transplant Japan's Cultural Heritage Protection Act (1950). It was not fully recognized that it was an extension of the Korean government's legislative process of cultural property during the period of 1945-1960. Therefore, it is important to examine the legislative process of cultural property from 1945 to 1960 to understand the background of enacting the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in 1962 along with the establishment of the Korean Cultural Property Law.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.55 no.1
• /
• pp.35-50
• /
• 2022

The Korean cultural heritage protection act, enacted in 1962, is known to have been enacted in imitation of the Japanese cultural heritage protection act. The Japanese law differs from the current law dealing with intangible cultural heritage, folklore materials, and buried cultural properties. The Japanese law was enacted in consultation with the GHQ, and reflected the historical issues at the time of the enactment. Recently, in Japan, GHQ documents have been released and so research on the cultural heritage protection act is carried out. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the meaning and achievements of the Japanese cultural heritage protection act before comparing it with the Korean law. GHQ stipulated the emperor as a symbolic entity in the Japanese constitution and prescribed the country as a liberal democracy. Influenced by this, the cultural heritage protection act was enacted to identify the people's cultural heritage. Accordingly, the cultural heritage protection committee is a private and independent organization in Japan. The committee designates cultural heritage assets, and it operates as the national museum and the cultural heritage research institute. This system was a part of policy changes shifting cultural heritage management to the private sector. Since many cultural heritages are associated with the imperial family, museums were managed by the imperial family. Meanwhile, the Japanese house of councillors persuaded GHQ, which was negative about including intangible cultural heritage in the cultural heritage protection act. The purpose of this idea was to provide the system of the government support for Japanese imperial court music and dance. In addition, folk materials were included with the consent of the GHQ in that they represent the cultural heritages and the academic achievements of the people at the time in Japan. According to the Korean Law, the subject of designation of cultural heritage is the government, and the cultural heritage committee acts as an advisory body with its limited functions. In the early days, the committee confused the concept of intangible cultural heritage and folklore materials. This was because the concepts of cultural property was borrowed from Japanese law and applied to the Korean law without a full understanding. In response, the cultural heritage committee urged the ministry to investigate the current situation in Japan. The cultural heritage committee, mainly consisting of folklore scholars, was confused about the concepts of intangible cultural heritage and folklore materials, but the concept became clear when the enforcement regulations of the cultural heritage protection Act was enacted in 1964.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.274-291
• /
• 2020

This year is the 50th anniversary of the adoption by UNESCO in 1970 of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (the '1970 Convention'). Since its ratification of the 1970 Convention in 1983, the Republic of Korea has domestically implemented the Convention through its Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which was first enacted in 1962. This is a different form of implementation than is normally used for other UNESCO Conventions on cultural heritage, in that the Republic of Korea has recently adopted special acts to enforce the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. In addition, the 1970 Convention has been developed further through the introduction of new Operational Guidelines in 2015 for the concrete enforcement of the Convention, which has provided momentum for the Republic of Korea to analyze its current national legislation related to the 1970 Convention as well as consider its amendment in the future. Overall, the Cultural Heritage Protection Act of the Republic of Korea effectively reflects the duties of States Parties under the 1970 Convention. These include measures to introduce export certificates, prohibit the import of stolen cultural property, return other state parties' cultural property, and impose penalties or administrative sanctions in the event of any infringements. Indeed, the Republic of Korea's implementation of the 1970 Convention was introduced as an example of good practice at the Meeting of State Parties in 2019. However, changes in the illegal market for cultural property and development of relevant international law and measures imply that there still exists room for improvement concerning the legal implementation of the 1970 Convention at the national level. In particular, the Operational Guidelines recommend States Parties to adopt legal measures in two respects: detailed criteria for due diligence in assessing bona-fide purchasers, referring to the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, and measures to address the emerging issue of illegal trade in cultural property on internet platforms. Amendment of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and other relevant laws should be considered in order to duly reflect these issues. Taking that opportunity, concrete provisions to facilitate international cooperation in respect of the implementation of the 1970 Convention could be introduced as well. Such measures could be expected to strengthen the Republic of Korea's international legal cooperation to respond to the changing environment regarding illicit trafficking of cultural property and its restitution.

• Archives of design research
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.43-54
• /
• 2004

The appreciation of cultural properties related with what the aspects of society was is mandatory to understand our culture correctly. To make over all cultural properties to our descendants without breakage or damage is our natural duty and national obligation. On the contrary, inhabitants in the preserved area should be restricted and controlled by the cultural property law. The conflict between the inhabitants in the preserved area and the government raises economical problems and damages all the time. Especially it is time to discuss to mediate between them and solve the problems. This feasible study is a proposal to settle them up through renovating abolished school in the preserve area to the museum and a case to preserve the cultual properties as well as habitant's assets in that area.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.1
• /
• pp.64-87
• /
• 2020

The cultural property management system of Korea was established based on the modern cultural assets acts and the old imperial estate management system enacted during the Japanese occupation. Academics have researched the cultural property management system oriented on the modern cultural assets acts, but few studies have been conducted into the old imperial estate management system, which is another axis of the cultural property management system. The old imperial estate was separated from the feudal capital by the Kabo Reform, but was dismantled during the colonial invasion of Japan and managed as a hereditary property of the colonial royal family during the Japanese colonial period. After establishment of the government, the Imperial Estate Act was enacted in 1954 and defined the estate as a historical cultural property managed by the Imperial Estate Administration Office. At this time, imperial estate property that was designated as permanent preservation property was officially recognized as constituting state-owned cultural assets and public goods in accordance with Article 2 of the Act's supplementary provisions during 1963, when the first amendment to the Cultural Property Protection act was implemented. In conclusion, Korea's cultural property formation and cultural property management system were integrated into one unit from two different sources: modern cultural assets acts and the old imperial estate property management system. If the change of modern cultural assets acts was the process of regulating and managing cultural property by transplanting and applying regulations from Japan to colonial Joseon, the management of the imperial estate was a process by which the Japanese colonized the Korean Empire and disposed of the imperial estate. Independence and the establishment of the government of the Republic of Korea provided the opportunity to combine these two different streams into one. Finally, this integration was completed with the establishment of the Protection of Cultural Properties Act in 1962.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.44 no.4
• /
• pp.18-41
• /
• 2011

The Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Korea has begun since1962 when the Cultural Properties Protection Act was established. Korean ICH Safeguarding system is initially derived from Cultural Properties Protection Act in Japan. Japan has started Important ICH Designation System in 1954 to concede the skills and artistic talents holders, thus it could implement the multilateral system management for adopting different ICH protection systems such as Important Intangible Folklore Properties, Selection and Preservation Techniques, and Documenting Records. However, Korea has solely adopted Important ICH Designation System since Cultural Properties Protection Act was introduced. Korean ICH Safeguarding System represented by the Certification System of ICH Skill Holders is to ensure skills and artistic holders who perform the elements of Intangible Cultural Heritage, and manage the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in order to let the skills and artistic holders instruct inheritors. As a result, it could build up the internal foundation for the diffusion of inheritors and established the related organizations. However, the inheritor-centered protection system has caused many problems as it is being lasted for more than fifty years. Fragmented designation measures, the cultural power of skill holders, and the research and evaluation methods have pointed out the difficulties of safeguarding and preservation measures of ICH. Moreover,the legitimacy of safeguarding system related in the authenticity of transmission in ICH has emerged to review the safeguarding system of ICH with diverse viewpoints. Therefore, this paper will review the implementation process and achievement of ICH safeguarding system to examine the problem and causes of the safeguarding system. The conference records of Cultural Property Association and articles of cultural properties policies directors, Cultural Property Association members, and professional experts are being used for the initial materials of this paper, and it is examined for the contents of designation system of Important Cultural Heritage, rather than overall cases. Thus such problems the limitation of expansion in ICH lists as inheritor-centered designation system, hierarchical and exclusive transmission system, inappropriate concept of archetype as the principle of ICH transmission are derived from the root of Important ICH designation system. Thus this paper demonstrates that this system must be revised for the expansion of ICH safeguarding system in Korea and points out multilateral protection system should be established as well as Certification System of Important ICH skill holders.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.148-165
• /
• 2015

The Cultural Properties Protection Law Act 1962 has been achieving its role for systematic preservation, management and application of the cultural heritage under rapid economic growth circumstances through continuing revisions. Introduced the influence review system for cultural heritages in 2000, and legislated the guideline for the state-change allowance standard for the National Cultural Heritage in 2006 in specific, the law has been contributing significantly for the cultural properties and historical/cultural environment preservation, along with increase in administrative efficiency and improvement on settlement environment. However, increase in public awareness about the cultural property's value and the needs for the local revitalization by utilizing the heritages, while some allowance standard not peoperly delivering the surrounding conditions, such as the value of the properties and their substantial characteristics, land utilization, etc. being applied, complaints from the local residents are increasing continuously. Thus this research focuses on clear vision/value of the heritage and apply them to create the review criteria for the state-change allowance per heritages. Here we set the Focus of Landscape Management Indicators in order to actively preserve and manage the physical characteristics and the native value by analyzing the Cultural Heritage Protection Laws and related guidelines, manuals and research papers, and redesign the cultural propertiy's classification scheme and propose the Review Standard for state-change from the view point of changing the current state. With this research, we expect increase in the satisfaction for the Property management system with public understanding promotion regarding the Standards by applying the reviewed state-change allowance Standards, white securing the consistency for the review criteria as well as the systematic management of historical/cultural environment with their typification characteristics and the value for short-term.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.57 no.2
• /
• pp.144-166
• /
• 2024

The Cultural Heritage Committee is an important organization that has been deliberating on important matters related to the preservation of cultural properties in the Republic of Korea for more than 60 years since 1962. The Cultural Heritage Preservation Committee was active in 1961, which was a short period of about a year, but the minutes prepared at the time confirmed that it had the following meanings. First of all, legally, it was meaningful in that the concept of cultural property or intangible cultural property was used for the first time in Korea in laws and regulations on the term of office of professional members. These matters became the basis for the operation of the current Cultural Heritage Protection Act and the Cultural Heritage Committee. The following confirms that, unlike previously known activities, they were active despite political upheaval at the time. In spite of rapid regime change at the time, the committee had no change in its members, and the meetings continued without interruption. At that time, there was an exclusive relationship between different groups in relation to the preservation of cultural heritage, and this relationship was confirmed by the minutes that disappeared with the establishment of the Cultural Heritage Management Bureau, which integrated these groups. Finally, the form of the minutes prepared then shows the form of documentation at the time, where it is confirmed that the traditional documentation format is changing into a new form. It can be good research material in terms of modern and contemporary bibliography. As discussed earlier, the Cultural Heritage Conservation Committee of 1961 has historical significance in terms of legal and actual activities. The reason why the committee's activities were low valued is presumed to be that the minutes and related documents prepared at the time were not organized well due to the lack of a related administrative system. The minutes of the Cultural Heritage Conservation Committee record various facts about cultural heritage policies and decisions at that time. Therefore, analysis and research on these contents can reveal more facts about the cultural heritage policies and perceptions of that time.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.35 no.4
• /
• pp.110-125
• /
• 2017

The Cultural Properties Protection Act enacted 1962 to encourge culture level of people by preserving and using cultural properties introduced Cultural Properties Change Permission System in 2000 in order to cope with rather targeted range towards the national designated cultural properties, and introduced the Guidelines for Permission Standard regarding Construction Activities within the Historical Cultural Environment Preservation Area (2006) to complement permission process and targets, Notification of Minor Changes around the National Designated Cultural Properties (2008), etc and continuously put efforts to improve further ever since. Nonetheless, while it showed decrease in the number of process of change permission per individual cases after 2007, it began to increase again since 2010, reaching 1,554 cases by 2014 - about 29% of the cases being rejected or under observation, people living surrounding of cultural properties still experience inconveniences. This study has been carried out by creating integrated DB with total 7,403 cases of permission status from 5 Subcommittees (Building / Historic Sites / Natural Heritage / Modern Cultural Heritage / Important Folk Culture) in Cultural Heritage Committee that are related with changing status for the past 5 years (2010-2014), and by further analyzing 4,364 cases amongst, that were reviewed within historical and cultural environment preservation area - analyzed applying types and the characteristics, reviewed the improvement plans of operation guidelines for the Committee and acts of minor changes towards surroundings of the national designated cultural properties that regulate the status changing permission targets by categorizing analysis results and deriving implications. I hope that this will complement to the operational guidelines for the Committee, along with minor changing activities around cultural properties in short term, and to secure basic data for systematic improvement plans ie., for delegated works range from city/county/districts through our research. Also hope to improve administrative efficiency by reforming permission systems for building activities in historic cultural environment conservation area, and reduce inconvenience people might experience, by minimizing socioeconomic expense needed for the review.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.49 no.1
• /
• pp.166-177
• /
• 2016

This essay explores the problems with applying the concept of "original form" to natural heritage when it is based on originality and diachronic, historical period. It also suggests an alternative perception that the concept of "original form" can be considered based upon "integrity". First, the conceptual framework for applying the concept of "original form" falls into three types: one that centers on the time point at which heritage originated; another that respects the diachronic characteristics of the concept of "original form"; and the last that bases original form on a particular time after the heritage originated. Second, the national policy for the conservation of natural monuments and scenic sites stayed at the level of consulting the Decree on the Preservation of Treasures, Historical Remains, Scenic Sites, and Natural Monuments of Joseon, under Japanese colonial rule. And after the legal framework was established through enacting and proclaiming of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in 1962, 564 cases have been designated as natural monuments. Third, the natural conservation movement, the first national policy for natural heritage, was initiated from the heritage field, but the Environment Ministry subsumed all nature-related policies and ever since the heritage agency (Cultural Heritage Administration) has implemented only heritage policies regarding "cultural" heritage. The present state of the coexisting policies about the natural heritage by the Environment Ministry and the Cultural Heritage Administration resulted in leading the public confused about official terms and main policy agency of natural heritage. Fourth, the difficulty of applying the concept of "original form" to natural heritage stems from the fact that natural heritage is inherently distinct from cultural heritage, which is placed at the center of the heritage policies implemented by the heritage agency. In addition, natural heritage, similarly distinct from the overall natural environment, has evolved in a way that incorporates human culture and thus diversely includes characteristics of originality, diachrony, and historical period. Under these circumstances, an incorporative, professional approach is required rather than independent approaches for each type of natural heritage. In conclusion, this essay suggests that issues related to the restoration of original conditions of natural heritage should be resolved through the application of the "integrity" concept by restoring "the characteristics of an object or a place that imbue it with meaning and value," with consideration given to efforts for alleviating logical contradictions within the concept of "original form" through the preparation of standards and guidelines for the restoration of original condition.