• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.27
• /
• pp.35-88
• /
• 2011

This study suggested the methods of record management for the heads of local government, which would be the most valuable among local records. In order to conduct a systematic record management for the heads of local government, this study suggested the methods of establishing a record management system regarding regulation arrangement, production registration, preservation, utilization and services. First of all, in order to estimate the record category of the heads of local government, the study examined the duties of the offices of the deputy heads of local government, secretary's offices and information offices, which have been subsidiary & assistance branches in charge of producing the record. In addition, it investigated the present conditions of record management for the heads of local government through the interviews with secretary offices and information offices belonging to 16 cities and provinces and the claims for information disclosure and found out the following problems. They included incomplete record production, non-registration of produced records, abolition of records and taking them out of designated places with due notice, record preservation period regardless of the term of the heads of local government, varied preservation period for the records of the heads of local government by local self-government, short preservation period of primary records and non-management of home pages after the term of the heads of local government. To solve such problems, the study suggested the regulation arrangement for record management and a record management system. The regulation arrangement could be obtained through the establishment of the administrative organization setup condolence etiquette enforcement regulation and the recorders in local government and the revision of operation rules and through the revision of the reference plan for operation rules enactment of recorders from National Archives of Korea. As for the record management system, the study suggested the establishment of production, registration and preservation system of records for the heads of local government and the utilization and services of their records. In order to produce and register the records, the unit assignments should be founded by department in charge of the duties related to the records of the heads of local government on record management criteria, thus letting the staff surely produce and register the records. In terms of utilization and services of the records, the study suggested the use of websites and drawing up the record list, through which each record viewer would be able to figure out which records have been managed through the list services and which services could be given to the residents, thus letting the residents and the heads of local government who finished their term of duties use the records.

• 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.