So Byeonghun's 'Multiple Homeowners Are Criminals' Remark... United Party: "What About the 42 Multiple Homeowners in the Democratic Party?"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Ji-eun] Regarding the remarks made by Democratic Party lawmaker So Byeong-hoon that "multi-homeowners are criminals," the United Future Party criticized, asking, "How do you explain the four multi-homeowners in the Democratic Party?"

Hwang Gyu-hwan, deputy spokesperson of the United Future Party, said in a statement on the 30th, "It is the incompetent government and ruling party that have taken away the people's right to happiness."

This was in response to So's remarks at the previous day’s Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee meeting, where he said, "People who buy and sell houses to make a profit are criminals and thieves who have taken away the people's right to happiness."

Deputy spokesperson Hwang questioned, "I want to ask whether So truly has an understanding consistent with constitutional values under a liberal democratic system that guarantees individual property rights," and retorted, "If that is the case, how do you explain the 42 Democratic Party lawmakers who were reported by the Korea Economic Justice Institute to be multi-homeowners?"

He pointed out, "Even Lee Nak-yeon, who is running for the Democratic Party leadership, reportedly gained over 1.7 billion won in capital gains by moving his residence to Jongno District during the last general election," and added, "Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Kim Hyun-mi, who told people to sell all houses except the one they live in, was a multi-homeowner until she sold a house in Yeoncheon to her younger sibling in 2018."

Deputy spokesperson Hwang criticized, "According to the asset declaration published in the National Assembly Gazette in March, So himself owns only one house, but he also has buildings jointly owned with his daughters, four forest land properties under his spouse’s name, five fields and two forest land properties under his mother’s name," and questioned, "Is it acceptable as long as it’s not a house? Or is it the typical 'double standard' where it’s legitimate property ownership if they do it, but speculation if others do?"

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.