▲ File Photo
The Constitutional Court has ruled that a Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport guideline requiring certified public realtors to display a single expected transaction price when advertising real estate listings online does not violate the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court announced that it dismissed a constitutional complaint filed against Article 5, Subparagraph 3 and Article 6, Subparagraph 3 of the Detailed Standards for Explicit Matters in Display and Advertising of Brokerage Objects, a guideline enacted by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, with a unanimous opinion of all justices on the 27th.
The complainant is an individual who applied for a patent regarding a real estate internet auction business method.
The business method involves a real estate seller setting a minimum asking price and bidding period, after which a certified public realtor advertises it on an internet auction site and then proceeds with brokerage procedures offline with the seller, starting with the prospective buyer who offered the highest price.
The complainant inquired through e-People (a national grievance portal) whether such a business operation violates relevant laws and regulations, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport responded in accordance with its guideline that "the expected transaction price must be displayed as a single price."
The guideline in question stipulates that when certified public realtors place internet advertisements regarding real estate, "the price must be displayed as a single expected transaction price before the brokerage is completed."
The complainant filed a constitutional complaint in December 2022, claiming that this obligation to display a single price infringes upon the freedom to conduct business, but the complaint was dismissed.
The Constitutional Court explained, "The provisions subject to review aim to provide consumers with accurate information regarding the price of brokerage objects, prevent discrepancies between advertised prices and actual transaction conditions, protect consumers from false and exaggerated advertisements, enhance transparency in the real estate market, and establish a sound transaction order," adding that "such legislative purposes are legitimate."
The court pointed out that if ambiguous price indications were permitted, problems with "bait listings" could arise—where low prices including low figures are put forward to lure consumers, only for higher prices to be quoted during actual consultations—thereby disrupting the real estate transaction order.
It further added, "Even under the provisions subject to review, the prices of brokerage objects are ultimately determined naturally according to the laws of supply and demand, and it cannot be said that the real estate transaction order is disturbed simply due to the fact that urgent listings are traded at lower prices in that process."
(File Photo: Yonhap News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.