“If you buy the wrong house, you will pay cash”… Controversy over the unconstitution of the 2nd and 4th measures to block speculation

Input 2021.02.05 06:05

Even if it is irrelevant to the maintenance project, purchases after the countermeasure date will be accepted when led by the public
Concerns about infringement of unspecified property rights due to retroactive application

Whether it’s an apartment or a detached house, I don’t know if I’ll have irreversible regrets after buying the wrong house.

This is because if an apartment or house purchased after February 4 is included in a public-led maintenance project (reconstruction and redevelopment), it is subject to cash settlement regardless of whether or not speculation. In particular, as these standards are applied to houses that are not related to the maintenance project at the time of purchase, there is a concern about the infringement of a number of unspecified property rights that unintentionally put their home in a position to be accepted as a public maintenance project.

On the 4th, the government announced the plan to dramatically expand the supply of large-scale housing 3080 (2∙4 measures), which the government announced as a special supply measure. It contains measures to curb speculation to liquidate in cash.

However, controversy over the constitution is also raised in that this anti-speculation measure can infringe property rights through retrospective application.

According to the measures to curb speculation, if real estate in the reconstruction and redevelopment area was purchased after the announcement date of the ‘2·4 measure’ or if the number of shares was increased through stake splitting, it was decided to settle cash without giving priority to apartment supply for public-led maintenance projects.

If a house was contracted after 4 days even if it was not related to reconstruction or redevelopment at the time of purchase, such measures will be retroactively applied when promoting public maintenance projects in the future, and instead of the priority supply right for apartments, they will receive cash.

The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs official said, “This is the case with the current measures,” when asked if the houses purchased after the announcement date of the measures will be accepted as cash settlement for public-led maintenance projects in the future, even if they are irrelevant to the maintenance project at the time of purchase. Regarding the point that there is a controversy over retrospective application, he said, “You may have to be cautious about housing transactions in some ways in the future.”

In the industry, there is growing controversy over unconstitutionality that the property rights of home buyers may be violated as measures aimed at giving priority supply rights only to indigenous peoples for maintenance projects are applied too retroactively.

Professor Shim Gyo-eon of the Department of Real Estate at Konkuk University said, “If the priority supply right is divided on the basis of the announcement date of the countermeasure, there will be controversy over the constitution that the property rights of home buyers who are not related to speculation will be violated.” “It can be.”

“If there is no scope, such as the planned location or time of the public maintenance project, and prioritized pre-sale rights are decided on the basis of the announcement date, there will be a lawsuit related to the controversy over retroactive application,” said Ji-yeol Yoon, CEO of RedS Group, a real estate developer. “It’s like saying you don’t do real estate transactions anywhere.” He added, “The existing public maintenance projects have not been properly promoted, but if you add these measures, it will only bring about the adverse effects of holding back public-led supply measures.”

An official at a maintenance company who requested anonymity said, “I have been in a hurry to come up with a supply plan, and a flaw was exposed in the part of suppressing speculation.”