Article 124(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) provides that “Any person who has obtained permission for a land transaction contract under Article 118 shall use the land for the permitted purpose within a period prescribed by Presidential Decree not exceeding five years, except in cases where any ground prescribed by Presidential Decree exists,” imposes a person who has obtained permission for a land transaction contract on a person who has obtained permission for a land transaction contract for the permitted purpose, and Article 124-2(2) provides that “the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall impose a non-performance penalty on the person who fails to use the land for the permitted purpose within the period prescribed by Presidential Decree not exceeding 10/100 of the acquisition value of the land.”

The purpose of this Act is to ensure the effectiveness of the land transaction contract permission system introduced to stabilize the economic life of the people and promote the efficient utilization of the land by preventing speculative land transactions, and thereby ensuring the economic stability of the people by preventing land price increase, and thereby effectively securing the effectiveness of the land transaction contract. The imposition of land use obligation is not limited to a wide range of exceptions, but it cannot be deemed that the excessive restriction of the property rights of the person who obtained land transaction permission is necessary because the period of land use obligation and the amount of charges for compelling performance and the frequency of the non-performance are reasonably restricted. However, the public interest that can be achieved therefrom is very large. Thus, the imposition of the land use obligation and the non-performance penalty pursuant to each of the above Acts do not violate the principle of excessive prohibition under Articles 23 and 37(2) of the Constitution.

Furthermore, Article 124(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that a person who has obtained permission for a land transaction contract shall use it for permitted purposes, and it does not comprehensively delegate the scope and contents of the duty to use land to the person who has obtained permission for a land transaction contract to the Presidential Decree. Thus, the above provision does not violate the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation under Article 75 of the Constitution.

Therefore, all applications filed for adjudication on the constitutionality of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)