The reconstruction project is a very useful means of urban maintenance that can supply urban poor quality housing and enhance urban competitiveness by expanding urban infrastructure such as parking lots, roads, and parks. Moon Jae-in government, which was launched in May 2017, announced 6.19 real estate measures, 8.2 real estate measures last year and residential welfare road map and plan to revitalize rental housing at the end of the year when house prices rose in Gangnam reconstruction area in Seoul. And announced measures to overhaul such measures as the announcement of reconstruction levy and the enhancement of safety diagnosis. Many controversies have been raised, such as raising the constitutional wishes around some reconstruction members.
In this study, the literature review and actual cases of reconstruction excess profits return system which is under controversial issue are explored, and through empirical analysis, the problems of the reconstruction contribution system are clarified more clearly and help the government authorities to take measures for improvement .
First, it is a problem of the reconstruction levy system itself. In particular, there is a problem of tax equality among union members. Members who are acquired immediately prior to the approval of the association establishment committee earn profits, but the members who are acquired immediately before the completion of the construction are subject to a large loss. In addition, the per capita levy differs by about 40 million won depending on whether the housing price at the end of the general sale price is set as the general sale price or the declared price. In addition, due to the imbalance of disclosure prices, the equality of allocation of rebuilding fees by member is not guaranteed. In the redevelopment project similar to the reconstruction project and the reconstruction project in the reconstruction project of the local housing association project, only the reconstruction grant system is introduced, raising the issue of equity.
Second, there is unconstitutionality. In the light of the Constitutional Court's decision (Constitutional Court Decision - 92), the current reconstruction levy system is based on the assumption that the calculation method is the method of calculation was inaccurate and unfair, and the ability to pay taxes was not taken into account. In addition, there are no supplementary provisions to reverse if house prices fall over time. In particular, the purchase timing and purchase price of a house of the same size vary widely, and despite the hundreds of millions of won difference in the cost of reconstruction, convenience of taxation is placed on the same basis.
In addition to imposing reconstruction levy that are just nominal profits that are not realized in addition to the existing transfer income tax, problems that are imposed redundantly with other taxes such as corporation tax, property tax, and comprehensive real estate tax, (Rented housing) obligatory supply, infrastructure burden, school site charge, etc., Are charged for the return of development profits. In addition, the imposition of rebuilding burden is double taxation and duplicate taxation. And as announced by the government, up to 800 million won in rebuilding fees is a violation of the freedom of residence of union members who do not have the ability to bail out and to deprive them of their freedom of residence.