地價政策의 改善方案에 관한 硏究 : 公示地價制度를 中心으로

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

It is never exaggerating to say that our country's land policies are related to the land price policies for the last three decades; the high land price is our greatest pending social problem.
Thus, the government decided to depart from the conventional land policies and introduce the system based on the concept of "public land ownership", and enacted "the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act". The public notice land price system introduced in 1989 has served to streamline the land price survey system and thereby, solve the problem of confusion and distrust involving the disclosure of land price for public purpose, and thus, enhance the reliability of land price for public purpose. Moreover, the new system provides for the systematic information regarding land prices only to help stabilize the land price. Nevertheless, the land price notice system has some problems.
With such basic conceptions in mind, this study was aimed at reviewing the functions and roles of the land price notice system and address its problems to suggest their solutions.
The problems identified regarding the current land price notice system are gap between officially assessed land price and market price, enforcement of the officially assessed land prices, lack of the system ensuring the fairness of the officially assessed land prices, less effective plural assessment system, inappropriate distribution of reference lands, problematic comparison table regarding reference land and object land (land price comparison table), ineffective ALPA, lack of professionalism on the parts of officials in charge, etc.
The solutions to the above problems may be enumerated as follows;
First, it is necessary to narrow the gap between officially assessed land price and market land price gradually according to a pre-set schedule, while data regarding the actual land trading prices should be accumulated.
Second, land prices for a public purpose should be assessed according to the officially assessed land prices, while those for a private purpose be assessed using the three principles of assessment. If the results of the latter assessment could be referred to, the land resources would be more effectively distributed.
Third, for a more fair land price notice, such measures as establishment of special assessment and appraisal organization, rearrangement of assessment and appraisal criteria, introduction of appraisal review system and construction of assessed and appraised database should be taken.
Fourth, in order to make valid the plural assessment system and ensure a fair assessment, more detailed standard land survey results and price assessment opinions should be submitted so that land appraiser's opinions and land price decision should be compared with each other. In addition, the current plural assessment system may well be replaced with the "appraisal review system" being operated in the United States, the United Kingdom and other advanced nations.
Fifth, the current distribution of reference lands should be relocated based on the analysis using the similar price zone and land price diagram, and thereby, the current reference lands should be redistributed.
Sixth, in calculating the individually officially assessed land price, it is necessary to divide the coverage of the land price comparison table into the unit administrations or 'up', 'myon' or 'dong' to reflect the microscopic land price changes. Furthermore, the weight checklist should include such subjective environments as terminal, market, administration building, school and other amenities, while the conditions of nearby land uses should be taken into consideration.
Seventh, in order to enhance the professionalism of the officials in charge, it will be necessary to establish the job of land price assessment, while introducing incentives for the officials and reeducating and retraining them more.