• Land and Housing Review
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.99-105
• /
• 2013

Development Charge System was introduced in 1989 to recapture development gains, however, it has been revised more than 20 times since then. The reason for such frequent revisions was that estimating development cost was too composite and indefinite. Therefore it is required that estimating method of development cost should be simplified in order to minimize conflicts among diverse parties. To support the recent revision of 'Restitution and Development Gains Act', this study verified several alternatives of applying standardized costs per area under specific size of development and suggested policy implications. For analysis data, 9,362 Development Charge and cost data of si gun gu for recent 3 years were used. The results showed that dividing Seoul Metropolitan Area (SMA) and non-SMA made a significant difference and definite divisions among regional groups. The result of this study could minimize social conflicts as well as contribute in realizing the public concept of land policy by revising Development Charge System.

• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.1-29
• /
• 2012

Based on the spatial and land price data of innovation cities and their periphery areas in Korea, this study examines the degree and timing of changes in land price in relation to projects concerning innovation city. The study result confirms that the current system is inconsistent with the principle of restitution of development gain and therefore, this study attempts to seek improvement measures so that the current system can better fit the principle. The analysis reveals that most innovation cities, excluding Sinseo-dong of Daegu and Ujeong-dong of Ulsan, recorded a statistically significant increase in land prices since 2005, compared to those of their neighboring areas. It can be said that the information related to projects concerning innovation city was reflected in the land price since 2005. However, the standard land price pursuant to Article 70 of the Land Compensation Act is the officially assessed land price released on 1st of January 2007, and this official land price was actually applied to the compensation process. Therefore, estimating the compensation amount for land expropriation based on this land price will contradict the principle of restitution of development gain. In other words, despite the fact that development-related information was already reflected in land prices of innovation cities from 2005 to the end of 2006, the compensation process were carried out without institutional arrangements or efforts to exclude such reflection. To solve this problem, this study makes two suggestions. First, it is necessary to cast aside the limitations of the official land price that can be retroactively applied in accordance with Paragraph 5 of Article 70 of the Land Compensation Act, and instead apply the land price which is the most latest but deemed to have no reflection of development gains. Based on this revised standard land price, if the compensation amount is corrected by the average inflation rate and the average rate of increase in land price during the period until the time of the recognized land price, the amount would better satisfy the principle of restitution of development gain. Second, it is necessary to clearly stipulate the standards of development gains being reflected on the land price by including it in the secondary legislation. Under the current system, it is highly likely that appraiser's arbitrary interpretation on development gains is included in the process of calculating the amount of compensation for land expropriation. In this regard, it is necessary to improve the standards on determining whether development gains are reflected based on the results of this academic research and the existing guidelines for appraisal of compensation for land expropriation published by the Korea Association of Property Appraisers.

• KSCE Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Research
• /
• v.35 no.6
• /
• pp.1421-1429
• /
• 2015

During the six years from 2006 to 2011, based on a study of projects with an area equivalent to or less than $2,700m^2$ located in Jeju self-governing province, it was shown, through comparison with the pre-existing calculation methods, that there were many problems with the application of the standard cost. Accounting for the uniqueness of Jeju province, the study suggested an alternative method for applying the standard cost, basing it on property usage of either urban area or non-urban area pursuant to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act rather than land type of either mountain area or non-mountain area, with the utilization of T-test and ANOVA raising the reliability of this study.