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.
As our economy grows and the number of aircraft increase, the number of civil execution against aircraft cases are likely to increase as well in the future. The purpose of this article is to present the legal theory on the civil execution against aircrafts by drawing on the legal theory on the civil execution against vessels which constitute a relatively large number of cases thus observed. The provisions of the civil execution against immovables or vessel, shall basically apply mutatis mutandis to the civil execution against aircraft or light aircraft. The civil execution against ultra-light flying devices or a foreign aircraft shall be executed in conformity with the civil execution against movables. There are a compulsory auction, an auction to execute a security right to aircraft, and an auction under the right of retention, etc. in the civil execution against an aircraft. A compulsory execution against an aircraft means an execution carried out by a creditor against a debtor's aircraft to obtain satisfaction of claims for the purpose of payment of money. The court of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be the district court having jurisdiction over the airport of stoppage or storage of such aircraft at the time of seizure. The forums of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be exclusive forums. When a court has rendered an order on commencing an auction, it shall order an execution officer to receive a certificate of the aircraft's registration and other documents as required for its operation, and to submit them to the court. A court may revoke the procedures for a compulsory auction when an execution officer fails to obtain a transfer of the aircraft's registration certificate, etc. and the location of the aircraft is not evident, not later than an elapse of 2 months from the date on which an order on commencing an auction has been rendered. In the case where it is deemed that there exists a business-related need or other based on proper reasoning, the court may permit the aircraft's operation, upon the motion submitted by the debtor. In this case, there shall be a consent from the creditor, the highest bidder, the next highest bidder and successful bidder. A court may, upon a motion submitted by the creditor, make the dispositions required for observing and preserving the aircraft. When a debtor has submitted the documents under subparagraph 2 or 4 of the Article 49 of the Civil Execution Act, and furnished the guarantee equivalent to the claims of the execution creditors and the creditors demanding a distribution and to the costs for execution, before a declaration of bid, the court shall, upon request, revoke other procedures than those for distribution. The provisions of a obligatory auction against vessel or aircraft and an auction to execute a security right to real estate or vessel, shall apply mutatis mutandis to an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. In an auction to execute the security right to aircraft case, an executive title is not necessary. An executory exemplification is not necessary in an application for an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. A court should examine the existence of security right and claim secured. No order on commencing an auction procedure shall be issued with non-existence or invalidity of the security right and absence or extinguishment of the claim secured. Furthermore, these prohibitions are the reason of a decision on non-permit for sale, the court overlooked these prohibitions, and the decision on a permit for sale became final and conclusive, the successful bidder who paid the price and registered of ownership could not acquire ownership of the aircraft sold. A court may render a ruling to put plural aircrafts up for a blanket auction, only when they are in restraint and related matter (Supreme Court Order 2001Ma3688 dated on August 22, 2001). A righter of retention on aircraft may file a request for an auction against the aircraft. The provisions of an auction to execute a security right to aircraft shall apply mutatis mutandis to the formal auction. Airport facility fee and an aircraft are not in restraint and related matter, so an airport management corporation does not hold the right of retention on the aircraft (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da29291 decided on April 10, 2014). In an auction in accordance with the right of retention, all encumbrances (e.g., mortgages) on the sold aircraft shall be extinguished by a sale under the legal conditions for sale. Not only creditors who have claims for preferential payment but also general creditors could demand for distribution. The precedence of the claim of the right of retention on aircraft and that of general creditor's claims are equal.