A. Whether the provisions of Articles 2, 7, 19, 21, and 24 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site and Articles 2 and 3 of the Addenda are unconstitutional

B. Whether the latter part of Article 20 (1) 3 and 8 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site is unconstitutional

A. Article 2, 7, 19, 21, and 24 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, or Article 2 and Article 3 of the Addenda of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites do not violate Article 23 (Guarantee of Property Rights and Restrictions), Article 38 (Duty to Pay Taxes), Article 13 (2) (Restrictions on Retroactive Legislation), Article 14 (Freedom of Residence), and Article 15 (Freedom of Employment) of the Constitution, and thus, shall not be null and void.

B. The latter part of Article 20(1)3 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites can objectively recognize the meaning and contents of the Act through reasonable interpretation. The same provision does not violate the Constitution since subparagraph 8 of the same Article explicitly lists the land excluded from the imposition of charges and prescribes other housing sites prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the right to decide whether to impose charges is not delegated in blank. It cannot be said that it violates the provisions of Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution and thus cannot be deemed null and void.

A. Articles 2, 7, 19, 21, and 24(b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Articles 2, 3, 23, 13(2), 14, and 15 of the Addenda of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Articles 20(1)3, 20(1)8 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Articles 38, and 59 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Nu12916 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3104) 93Nu22968 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1351) 93Nu21637 delivered on May 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1851) 94Nu14216 delivered on February 14, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1355)

Attorney Kim Yong-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant

The request for unconstitutionality review is dismissed.

The grounds for requesting an unconstitutionality motion shall be examined.

The gist of the reason for the instant application is that (1) Articles 2, 7, 19, 21, and 24 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (hereinafter “the Act”) uniformly stipulate that the citizens own housing sites more than a certain size and its circumstances or the charges for excessive ownership (hereinafter “charges”) equivalent to 11% per annum from 6% per annum falling under quasi-tax without proper consideration of the form of ownership and imposition of the charges for excessive ownership (hereinafter “the charges”) equivalent to 6% per annum from 11% per annum, which provides for an individual’s creative initiative and freedom, shall be deprived of property rights without just compensation in violation of Article 23(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees property rights in a democratic state; (2) Article 20(1) of the Act provides that the subject of imposition of charges shall be excluded from the subject of imposition of charges; and (3) Article 3 of the Act provides that the Act provides that a person shall be subject to the imposition of charges for life-free transfer of housing sites, which, in fact, shall be subject to the principle of no taxation without law.

First, (1) (3) (4) of the reasons for application: (1) one of the charges is one of the charges for household ownership exceeding the upper limit; (2) the Act provides that a person who owns a housing site before two months have elapsed since its promulgation may, in principle, impose charges on the housing site exceeding the upper limit for each household; (3) the Act provides that a person who owns a housing site shall be able to own the housing site more than the upper limit for each household; (4) the purpose is to ensure the stability of the lives of the people by setting the limit of the area where the housing site can be owned and promoting the supply of the housing site (Article 1); (4) one of the methods for achieving its purpose, which is owned in excess of the upper limit prescribed by the Act; and (3) Article 3(1)2 of the Addenda 9 of the Act provides that the person who owns the housing site shall be held in excess of the upper limit of the charges within the period of two years prior to its promulgation; and (4) Article 9(2) of the Act provides that the person liable to pay charges shall be held in violation of the Act.

Furthermore, the legislative purpose of the law, which provides for the issue of the reason for application (2) as one of the sites excluded from the imposition of charges under Article 20(1)3 of the Act, is that the legislative purpose of the law, such as inducing the people to own housing sites excessively and promoting the supply of housing sites, and its meaning and contents can be objectively recognized by such reasonable interpretation. In addition, since subparagraph 8 of Article 20(1) of the Act specifically lists the housing sites excluded from the imposition of charges and provides the housing sites as prescribed by the Presidential Decree under subparagraph 8, the right to decide whether to impose charges should be delegated in blank to the Presidential Decree, the latter part and subparagraph 3 of Article 20(1) of the Act cannot be deemed to be unconstitutional, and it cannot be deemed null and void as it violates the provisions of Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution, which govern tax relations.

Therefore, the request for unconstitutionality is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)