Whether the proviso of Article 20(1)4 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites violates the provisions on the guarantee of property rights under the Constitution.

Article 20 (1) 4 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites provides that the construction of a housing site exceeding the area under each subparagraph of Article 7 (1) shall be excluded from the subject of the imposition of excessive ownership charges, even though the proviso provides that "if a housing site by household is only one site, it shall be limited to the case where the housing site by household is one site) is excluded from the subject of the imposition of charges." Thus, the above proviso is derived from the legislative purpose of the same Act that induces citizens to own the housing site properly and facilitate the supply of the housing site, and thus, it is sufficiently reasonable. Thus, it cannot be said that the provision violates the provisions on property rights guarantee of the Constitution.

Article 20(1)4 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites and Article 23 of the Constitution

Plaintiff Kim Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu14195 delivered on September 28, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the records, although the court below did not stipulate the basis of calculation in the notice of charges (Evidence A (Evidence A) issued by the defendant as of August 31, 1993 by the defendant to the plaintiff, the court below's decision that the notice of calculation of charges (Evidence A5) sent on September 4, 1993, which was sent by the defendant as of August 31, 1993, is justified in the determination that the defect in the notice was cured in the calculation basis, and there is no error of law in the selection of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory

Article 20 (1) 4 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites provides that the construction of a housing site exceeding the size under each subparagraph of Article 7 (1) shall be excluded from the housing site subject to the imposition of excessive ownership charges by stating that the construction of the excess portion is impossible under the Building Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. However, the proviso provides that "if the housing site for each household is only one housing site, it shall be limited to the case where the housing site for each household is only one housing site)" and it is excluded from the housing site subject to the imposition of charges. Thus, the proviso provides that the above provision is reasonable as it is derived from the legislative purpose of the above Act to induce citizens to own the housing site properly and facilitate the supply of the housing site, and therefore it cannot be deemed that the provision on property rights of the Constitution is violated, and therefore, the decision of the court below that the land of this case does not fall under the exclusion of the imposition of charges under the proviso of Article 20 (1) 4 of the above Act in this case

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)