• Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.247-274
• /
• 2018

In 2013, the Japanese bookstore company CCC entrusted the management and operation of the library as the designated administrator of Takeo City Library. The library has a commercial facility in the hall and uses its own classification system. It was reported the number of visiting users was increased as 3.7 times in the first year of the reopening and it has attracted the attention of the public. The purpose of this study is to investigate the background, current status and operational characteristics of the Takeo City Library by conducting the literature review, content analysis of newspaper articles and interview survey on the library. As a result of the research, newspaper articles positively assessed the fact that the library provided a 'multicultural space' to small city residents, increased visitors, and local economic effects, but pointed out that the operating deficit continued, and the problem occurred in the selection of collections.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.222-267
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this document is to explain the revisions of the Protection of Cultural Properties Act and its sub-laws which have been mad from Jan. 1999 to Sep. 2001. The Protection of Cultural Properties Act and its sub-laws have been revised three times from 1999 to 2001, before and after the Office of Cultural Properties was raised to Cultural Properties Administration on May 24, 1999. The main points of the revisions are as follows. First of all, the role of the local autonomous entities has been increased. The governor of the local autonomous entities is entitled to announce administrative orders related to the preservation of State-designated Cultural Properties. Also, the local autonomous entities has the authorities to examine whether the construction work which will be made in the outer boundaries, which is provided by regulations, of the protected area of the cultural properties might have any effect on preservation of cultural properties or not. Second, preventive actions to protect the cultural properties have been strengthened. If the scale of construction work is more than some scale, the preliminary survey of the surface of the earth to confirm the existence of buried cultural properties and their distribution is obligated. One who is promoting the development plan more than some scale must discuss the plan with the Administrator of Cultural Properties Administration in the process of planning. These actions would be effective to prevent the cultural properties from being damaged because of the development. Third, relaxation of the restrictions has been proceeded. On the basis of regulations which specify the actions to affect the preservation of cultural properties, negative system that does not limit the actions which are not specified in the regulations is introduced. The appropriateness of both protected structure and area should be regularly reviewed and adjusted. Also, most of the restrictions which was made only for administrative convenience and over-regulated the people's living have been revised. Finally, the number of cultural properties to be protected has been increased. Besides the State-designated Cultural Properties, the other cultural properties which are worthy to be protected as City-or-Province-designated Cultural Properties can be designated provisionally and protected. The system of registration and maintenance of the buildings and facilities which are not designated as the Modern Cultural Heritages is established. The penalty for damaging and stealing the cultural Properties which are not designated to be protected was strengthened. Even a dead natural monument can be acknowledged as an natural monument and it is limited to make a specimen or stuffing of the dead natural monument. All of these actions are fit to the high level of understanding of the public about the cultural properties and as the result of these actions, the number of cultural properties to be preserved has been increased. To sum up, the directions of revisions of the Protection of Cultural Properties Act and its sub­laws which have been made from Jan. 1999 to Sep. 2001. are the localization of the protection of the cultural properties, the strengthening of protective actions, the relaxation of various regulations and the increasing of the number fo the protected cultural properties. Also, various problems raised in the processes of implementations of the laws have been reviewed and revised.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.51 no.4
• /
• pp.146-169
• /
• 2018

Artificial or natural artifacts, which have historical, artistic, academic or scenic value as national, ethnic or global assets, are designated as "cultural heritages" under the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage. Cultural heritages can be divided into tangible cultural heritages, intangible cultural heritages, and monument and folklore heritages. In addition, depending on the object of designation, a cultural heritage can be designated either as a city or a provincial cultural heritage or a cultural heritage material, by a city mayor or provincial governor, and as a state-designated heritage by the administrator of the Cultural heritage Administration. The regular survey is a part of the policy for the preservation and management of state-designated heritages, which requires that surveys be undertaken every three to five years for the preservation, repair and maintenance of cultural heritages. It was stipulated in the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage in 2006, and since then has substantially contributed to the preservation and management of state-designated heritages based on the identification of damage to cultural heritages and the application of appropriate treatment measures. However, some parts of the guidelines on the regular survey, legislated in 2006, occasionally give rise to confusion in managing the regular survey system of state-designated movable cultural heritages, and need to be modified to facilitate the systematic management and improvement of the regular survey system. This study attempts to analyze the structure and operation of the regular survey system of state-designated movable cultural heritages, and proposes plans for improving the way of specifying each department which leads, manages and executes the regular survey, the process of entrusting the survey, and its guidelines and forms. I hope that these plans concerning the regular survey of state-designated movable cultural heritages will contribute to improving the quality and management of the system.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.49 no.1
• /
• pp.22-43
• /
• 2016

State Ownership of Excavated Cultural Heritage System was originated from the legislations concerning cultural objects during the Japanese colonial period (1910~1945) and was succeeded by the present Buried Cultural Properties Act enacted in 2011. Despite the importance of the system that completes the outcomes of excavations and determines the state-owned cultural properties, the foundation of national heritage, it has been limitedly regarded as administrative area and neglected by the academic scholars or policy researchers. Recently the traditional culture has drawn increasing domestic interest and awareness that the cultural heritage contributes to building cultural identity and vitalizing tourism has led to increasing the demand of a local government's role in management of the state-designated cultural heritage and even fighting for hegemony in securing the cultural objects between the central and local governments. Despite the continuing efforts for improving the selection process of cultural heritage and its management institution, establishment of an advanced objective system has been requested. This paper is intended to suggest the policy direction through demonstrating the problem and assignment caused in the process of implementing the Buried Cultural Properties Act and reviews the State Ownership of Excavated Cultural Heritage System from the legal point of view accordingly. First, I suggest improving the selection process of the state-owned cultural properties. Even though current law states that Administrator of Cultural Heritage Administration reviews the research reports and selects the possible candidates for the state-owned cultural properties almost all the cultural objects listed on the reports are practically selected. In this regard, two possible resolutions can be made; newly establishing a separate process for selecting the state-owned cultural properties after publishing the report or adding the selection process of the state-owned cultural properties during the heritage selection meeting. Either way should contribute to strengthening the impartiality and objectivity of the policy. My second suggestion is improving the operating system of the heritage selection meeting in which the cultural properties to be listed on the reports are determined. Given the present extensive assessment criteria, there is much room for certain experts' subjective opinions. Therefore, in order to enhance the fairness and credibility of the heritage selection meeting, specifying the assessment criteria and advance review of the expert list are necessary. Third, this paper suggests increasing the local government's role in management of the state-owned cultural heritage and diversifying the heritage management institution. Development of a local self-governing system has led to the increased demand for delegating the authority of the state-owned heritage management to the local governments. Along with this, the gradual improvements of public museum management raises the need for expanding the cultural benefits through increasing the local government's role in management of the state-owned heritage. Considering the fact that overall majority of the art collections housed at national or public museums is owned by the central government, developing a variety of heritage contents and vitalizing the heritage tourism are crucial. The true meaning and value of the state-owned cultural heritage hidden at the storage of a museum can be found when they are shared together with the public.