Official Land Price Assessment Based on Standard Land... Constitutional Court Rules "Constitutional"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the Act on the Public Announcement of Real Estate Prices and Appraisal, which requires the use of similar standard land as a basis when calculating individual land prices, is in accordance with the Constitution.

On the 28th, the Constitutional Court announced a unanimous decision by all justices to uphold the constitutionality in a constitutional complaint case filed by Mr. A and others, who argued that the method of calculating publicly announced land prices based on standard land was unclear.

Mr. A, selected as the operator for a driving school installation project in a local government in Gyeonggi Province, completed new construction in June 2015. After the construction was finished, the city imposed a development charge of approximately 2.13 billion won on Mr. A and other operators. Subsequently, Mr. A filed an administrative appeal and also initiated a lawsuit against the city, during which he filed a constitutional complaint.

However, the Constitutional Court ruled that "standard land refers to land with natural and social conditions similar to the subject land, and the differences are reflected through a land price comparison table designed to compare the factors forming the land price," and that this does not violate the principle of clarity.

Mr. A and others also claimed that Article 10, Paragraph 1 of the Development Profit Recovery Act, which requires calculating the land price at the end of the development charge period based on standard land, was unconstitutional, but the Constitutional Court rejected this claim. The court stated, "This is to prevent arbitrary valuation of land value, and it is difficult to see that the disadvantage to the payer outweighs the public interest in ensuring the effectiveness and fairness of the development charge system and the efficient imposition and collection," ruling constitutionality by a 7 to 2 vote.

However, dissenting justices Lee Seon-ae and Lee Eun-ae expressed the opinion that "no specific method has been prepared for objective value assessment, and payers may be subject to development charges on fictitious profits if development gains are excessively estimated beyond reality at any time."

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