https://www.internationalappraiser.com/2017/05/another-appraisal-in-seoul-eminent.htmlMy previous post on this matter spoke of a naturalized U.S. citizen who was having her home seized by the Seoul Municipal Government for a private development project. She was one of a few holdouts who insisted that she was not being properly compensated for her home in downtown Seoul. Both the U.S. and Republic of Korea constitutions and a treaty between the two nations guarantee “just compensation” for citizens who have their properties condemned for beneficial public projects, such as highways and public railways, in a system commonly known as “eminent domain”.
The
dependent variable that the valuation algorithm solves for is the price per square meter of land area,
not building area, because land in Seoul is worth far more than most buildings
on it due to the shortage of land.
Notice
that almost every input variable is a dummy variable. Dummy variables are
binary variables with the value of 1 or 0, depending upon the presence or
absence of a particular condition, such as being “adjacent to a narrow road”.
There are
only two quantifiable input variables in this model: the land area and the
distance to railways or highway. Missing from this model are so many
quantifiable variables such as distance to subway stations, distance to
shopping, distance to schools, quality of schools, floor area ratio
(ratio of building area to land area), and land slope.
Since the Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transportation is the same Korean ministry that exercises
the powers of eminent domain and licensing and discipline of appraisers, there
is also an inherent conflict of interest. Per scholar Byungkoo Cho, “when
MOLIT perceives a certain compensation amount to have been calculated as
excessively high, the appraisers may receive disciplinary actions such as
suspension of business or revocation of licenses.”Byungkoo Cho, “Just Compensation in Eminent Domain in Korea: From the
Perspective of Fairness,” Eminent Domain:
A Comparative Perspective (2017, Cambridge University Press).
The Korean client’s lawsuit against the private taking ultimately
lost in Korean courts, but the treaty between the U.S. and the Republic of
Korea mandates an international arbitration for a U.S. citizen.
We expect to be heard at the International Arbitration Centre in Hong
Kong.