"Are Members of the National Assembly Included?" Ruling Party Raises 'LH 3+1 Law', Sparking Multiple Issues (Comprehensive)

Retroactive Timing and Constitutional Issues Cause Confusion... Difficult to Condemn LH
‘Public Officials Conflict of Interest Prevention Act’ Excludes National Assembly Members
Ruling Party Emphasizes Turning Crisis into Opportunity: "We Will Eradicate It Through This Chance"

The Anti-Corruption and Economic Crime Investigation Unit of the Gyeonggi Southern Provincial Police Agency conducted a search and seizure on the 9th at the LH headquarters in Jinju, Gyeongnam, the LH Gwacheon-Uiwang Project Headquarters, and the LH Gwangmyeong-Siheung Project Headquarters in connection with the investigation into allegations of land speculation by employees of Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH) in new towns. The photo shows the LH Gwacheon-Uiwang Project Headquarters on that day. Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporters Chae-eun Koo, Se-hee Jang] The ruling party, faced with a major crisis triggered by LH, is attempting to contain the situation by pushing the so-called ‘LH 3+1 Act,’ but their response is being criticized as a case of “closing the stable after the horse has bolted,” with additional controversy over its effectiveness. Since the legislation applies only to the ‘future,’ it is difficult to punish LH employees who engaged in land speculation in the ‘past.’ Moreover, issues such as retroactive application of the law, constitutional concerns, and inclusion of lawmakers remain unresolved.

According to the Democratic Party on the 10th, the currently promoted ‘LH 3+1’ Act includes the following: the amendment to the Special Act on Public Housing (proposed by lawmakers Park Sang-hyuk, Moon Jin-seok, and Jang Kyung-tae), which imposes confiscation of speculative profits and penalties of 3 to 5 times the amount of unjust gains; the amendment to the Public Officials Ethics Act (proposed by lawmaker Kang Byung-won), which requires public enterprise employees and public institution executives to disclose their assets; and another amendment to the Public Officials Ethics Act (proposed by lawmaker Shin Jeong-hoon), which restricts land transactions by public officials for non-essential purposes, known as the ‘Real Estate Blank Trust System.’

In addition to these three laws, the ruling party is also pushing for the Conflict of Interest Prevention Act (initiated by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission in 2013) as part of the LH response legislation. The core of this law mandates that public officials must report to their agency heads and request recusal if they or their family members stand to gain or lose directly from financial or real estate transactions, permits, designations, registrations, or other duties related to their work. Kim Byung-wook, the ruling party’s secretary of the Political Affairs Committee, told Asia Economy in a phone interview, “Since this is a newly enacted law, we are preparing to hold public hearings,” adding, “It comprehensively covers conflict of interest standards and will play a role in preventing issues like those involving LH in advance.”

The Public Demands LH Punishment... But Constitutional Controversies and Challenges Abound

The Anti-Corruption and Economic Crime Investigation Unit of the Gyeonggi Southern Provincial Police Agency conducted a search and seizure on the 9th at the LH headquarters in Jinju, Gyeongnam, the LH Gwacheon-Uiwang Project Headquarters, and the LH Gwangmyeong-Siheung Project Headquarters in connection with the investigation into allegations of land speculation by employees of Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH) in new towns. The photo shows the LH Gwacheon-Uiwang Project Headquarters on that day. Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

The ruling party is devising a plan to introduce the concept of ‘quasi-retroactivity’ into the LH 3 laws, allowing retroactive application up to a certain point in time, and to punish cases where land compensation money has not been realized as market gains, as with LH employees. For example, they are considering including a retroactive clause in the supplementary provisions up to the specific time when LH speculation occurred (2018), or applying quasi-retroactive legislation to impose legally enhanced penalties. Yang Hyang-ja, a senior member of the Democratic Party, explained in a phone interview, “Similar retroactive application was made in the Special Act on the Confiscation of Pro-Japanese Property for similar reasons,” adding, “We are carefully reviewing the timing and details of introducing retroactivity.”

However, experts point out that retroactive application of criminal penalties may be unconstitutional. Professor Kim Hee-gyun of the Seoul National University of Science and Technology Law School said, “According to the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law, retroactive application is impossible for nine provisions related to penalties such as imprisonment and fines,” adding, “Creating new penalties or increasing penalties through special laws also violates the constitution.” However, Professor Kim noted, “Recovering profits is not a criminal penalty, so retroactive application may be possible depending on the purpose of the law.” Professor Roh Dong-il of Kyung Hee University Law School said, “Changing the law to impose disadvantages after the act has ended constitutes prohibited retroactive legislation,” and “The only way is to strictly apply existing laws.”

Conflict of Interest Prevention Act Including Lawmakers Discussed in the Steering Committee... Will It Be Pursued Together?

[Image source=Yonhap News]

There is also controversy over the Conflict of Interest Prevention Act being promoted by the Political Affairs Committee excluding ‘lawmakers,’ the legislative subjects, from the discussion. Currently, the Conflict of Interest Prevention Act including lawmakers is being separately discussed through a National Assembly Act amendment led by the Steering Committee, triggered by the controversy over independent lawmaker Park Deok-heum’s conflict of interest involving billions of won in construction contracts from agencies under his jurisdiction. However, the discussion remains stalled without gaining momentum. This has led to criticism that “while lawmakers’ conflict of interest issues are being postponed, only other public officials are being targeted.”

The ruling party emphasizes its stance to use this opportunity to refine the overall legal framework related to public officials’ conflicts of interest and turn it into a ‘blessing in disguise.’ Jin Sung-jun, a Democratic Party lawmaker from the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee, said in a phone interview with this publication, “We should take this opportunity to examine whether there is any unfairness in real estate transactions overall.” Kim Tae-nyeon, the Democratic Party floor leader, also emphasized at the party’s Supreme Council meeting that day, “We will use this incident as an opportunity to root out corruption in public office,” and “We will prepare strict and fundamental solutions so that public officials cannot even think about speculation.”

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