Discrepancies in the penalties for illegal construction in Gwangju have raised questions about the reliability of administrative data and the management of illegal buildings.
During an administrative audit, it was revealed that even the responsible department could not immediately confirm which data was accurate, highlighting the need for improved verification and management systems for basic administrative records.
Jeon Gyeong-seon, a member of the Gwangju City Council from the Democratic Party, pointed out the inconsistencies in the penalty and collection data for illegal constructions during an audit of the Housing and Construction Bureau on November 9.
According to Jeon, the penalty amount recorded in the illegal construction monitoring data for 2025 was approximately 4.9 billion won, while a separate submission indicated about 6.5 billion won.
This means there is a discrepancy of around 1.6 billion won in the penalty amounts for the same year.
Jeon criticized the department for failing to provide accurate figures during the audit, questioning how a proper administrative review could occur when basic records do not match.
The collection rate for illegal construction penalties was also a major concern.
As of the end of September 2026, the amount collected was approximately 1.83 billion won, resulting in a collection rate of about 65%.
Jeon emphasized the need to analyze the reasons behind the drop from a previous collection rate in the mid-80s and to develop practical measures to manage arrears and improve collection rates.
The effectiveness of administrative actions against illegal constructions was also called into question.
Jeon noted that the correction rate for illegal constructions remains around 60%, stating that merely imposing penalties repeatedly is insufficient to resolve illegal activities.
He stressed that the imposition of penalties should not be the ultimate goal of administration but rather to rectify violations and establish lawful construction practices, calling for enhanced management and oversight of compliance with correction orders.
Concerns were also raised regarding the appropriateness of budget execution.
Jeon pointed out the low budget execution rate for architectural aesthetics and urged a review of project progress and the reasons for delays in budget execution, advocating for responsible financial management to minimize waste.
The audit highlighted not only the discrepancies in penalty amounts but also the decline in collection rates and the effectiveness of illegal construction corrections, underscoring the need for a comprehensive review of related administrative practices.
Jeon Gyeong-seon stated, "Accurate data management and effective administrative execution are fundamental to governance," emphasizing the need to enhance the reliability of administrative records and thoroughly improve the management of illegal constructions and budget execution.
Meanwhile, it remains to be confirmed whether the 1.6 billion won discrepancy in penalty amounts identified during the audit arose from differences in calculation criteria or issues in actual management and collection. Future attention will be focused on the responsible department's data reconciliation and verification of accurate penalty amounts, as well as measures to improve collection rates.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.