Whether the provisions of Articles 2, 7, 19, 23, 24, and 25 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites are unconstitutional or not.

The provisions of Articles 2, 7, 19, 23, 24, and 25 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites cannot be deemed to violate the provisions of Articles 23, 11(1), 38, 59, 13(2), and 119(1) of the Constitution, and it cannot be deemed that the provisions of Articles 2, 7, 19, 23, 24, and 25 of the Constitution violate the provisions of Article 23, 11(1), 38, 59, 13(2), and 119(1) (basic principles of economic order) of the Constitution, and the principle of proportionality or the principle of equality required for restricting property rights, equality rights, etc. guaranteed by the Constitution due to each of the above provisions of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites do not violate the principle of excessive prohibition, or infringe on the essential contents of each of the above fundamental rights.

Articles 2, 7, 19, 23, 24, and 25 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, and Articles 11(1), 13(2), 23, 37(2), 38, 59, and 119(1) of the Constitution

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 17 others (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo and 18 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Lee Jae-il, Counsel for plaintiff

Head of Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City

Daejeon High Court Decision 94Gu826 delivered on October 14, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 23 of the Constitution provides for the legal reservation of the substance and limit of property rights (paragraph (1) and the duty of public welfare (paragraph (2)). Chapter 9 economic order based on which individuals and enterprises respect their economic freedom and creative initiative can be regulated and adjusted (Article 119) and the restrictions and obligations necessary for balanced utilization, development and preservation of national land can be imposed (Article 122). The Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides for the purpose of ensuring that the ownership of housing sites can be imposed for a certain period of time exceeding 10 years and also for the sake of ensuring that the people can own the housing sites for the sake of ensuring the stability of their residential life by prescribing the limits on the area of the housing sites to be excessively owned by the public (Article 1) and that the Act provides for the disposal and disposal of the housing sites for more than 3 years after the imposition of charges (Article 16). Furthermore, it is reasonable from the fundamental purport of the Act to ensure that the ownership and disposal of the housing sites can be carried out within a certain period of time limit and within 17 years after its use plan.

Therefore, the provisions of Articles 2, 7, 19, 23, 24, and 25 of the Act shall not be deemed to violate the provisions of Article 23 (Guarantee of Property Rights) of the Constitution, Article 11 (Guarantee of Right of Equality), Article 38 (Duty of Tax Payment), Article 59 (Tax Law), Article 13 (2), and Article 119 (1) (basic principles of economic order) of the Constitution, and it shall not be deemed that the provisions of Articles 2, 7, 19, 23, 24, and 25 of the Act violate the provisions of Article 37 (2) of the Constitution, or violate the provisions of Article 37 (2) of the Constitution, by infringing on the essential elements of each of the above fundamental rights. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the 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 Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)