Abstract
This paper aims to clarify how the publicness of landscape (keikan) is, examining two judicial cases involving the issue of landscape, from sociological standpoint. The court recognized the “landscape profit” from their ownership of property that created the landscape concerned, but this decision is arguable because it lacks the publicness of landscape. And it seems difficult for legal ways of thinking to manage this situation as it is, because the concept of landscape is formed in the tangle of the “public” and the “private”. Referring above, this paper concludes that the publicness of landscape is turned out to be “uneven”, depending the types of involvement to it by people.
