With the increasing complexity and irregularity of disaster types, the need for cultural asset preservation and management from a proactive perspective has increased as a number of cultural properties have been destroyed and damaged by various natural and humanistic factors. In consideration of these circumstances, the Cultural Heritage Administration enacted an Act in December 2005 to enforce the regular commission of surveys for the systematic preservation and management of cultural assets, and through a recent revision of this Act, the investigation cycle has been reduced from five to three years, and the object of regular inspections has been expanded to cover registered cultural properties. According to the ordinance, a periodic survey of city- or province-designated heritage is to be carried out mainly by metropolitan and provincial governments. The Seoul Metropolitan Government prepared a legal basis for commissioning regular surveys under the Seoul Special City Cultural Properties Protection Ordinance 2008 and, in recognition of the importance of preventive management due to the large number of cultural assets located in the city center and the high demand for visits, conducted regular surveys of the entire city-designated cultural assets from 2016 to 2018. Upon the first survey being completed, it was considered necessary to review the policy effectiveness of the system and to conduct a comprehensive review of the results of the regular surveys that had been carried out to enhance the management of cultural assets. Therefore, the present study examined the comprehensive management status of the cultural assets designated by the Seoul Metropolitan Government for three years (2016-2018), assessing the performance and identifying limitations. Additionally, ways to improve it were sought, and a DB establishment plan for the establishment of an integrated management system under the auspices of the Seoul Metropolitan Government was proposed. Specifically, survey forms were administered under the Guidelines for the Operation of Periodic Surveys of National Designated Cultural Assets; however, the types of survey forms were reclassified and further subdivided in consideration of the characteristics of the designated cultural assets, and manuals were developed for consistent and specific information technologies in respect of the scope and manner of the survey. Based on this analysis, it was confirmed that 401 cases (77.0%) out of 521 cases were generally well preserved; however, 102 cases (19.6%) were found to require special measures such as attention, precision diagnosis, and repair. Meanwhile, there were 18 cases (3.4%) of unsurveyed cultural assets. These were inaccessible to the investigation at this time due to reasons such as unknown location or closure to the public. Regarding the specific types of cultural assets, among a total of 171 cultural real estate properties, 63 cases (36.8%) of structural damage were caused by the failure and elimination of members, and 73 cases (42.7%) of surface area damage were the result of biological damage. Almost all plants and geological earth and scenic spots were well preserved. In the case of movable cultural assets, 25 cases (7.1%) among 350 cases were found to have changed location, and structural damage and surface area damage was found according to specific material properties, excluding ceramics. In particular, papers, textiles, and leather goods, with material properties that are vulnerable to damage, were found to have greater damage than those of other materials because they were owned and managed by individuals and temples. Thus, it has been confirmed that more proactive management is needed. Accordingly, an action plan for the comprehensive preservation and management status check shall be developed according to management status and urgency, and the project promotion plan and the focus management target should be selected and managed first. In particular, concerning movable cultural assets, there have been some cases in which new locations have gone unreported after changes in ownership (management); therefore, a new system is required to strengthen the obligation to report changes in ownership (management) or location. Based on the current status diagnosis and improvement measures, it is expected that the foundation of a proactive and efficient cultural asset management system can be realized through the establishment of an effective mid- to long-term database of the integrated management system pursued by the Seoul Metropolitan Government.