A Study on Acceptance of Housing Performance Indication System in Korea
-By Comparison with Housing Performance Indication System in Japan-
LEE, Hyunsang
In chapter 1, the study had critical minds from the problem of housing commercialization in Korea, theproblem of asymmetric information in the housing market and the problem byacceptance of the system. Through consideration of the existing researches, thestudy described its features including research purpose, establishment ofassignment and research method & scope.
In chapter 2, the study explained features of market supplementation by housing performance indicationsystem in Korea and Japan. Through literary consideration, the study describedfunctions of social capital formation∙social welfare andfeatures of housing problem in the housing supply policy of Korea. The studyalso suggested problems by price of houses for installment sale and habitabilityas a factor of introduction of the (housing performance indication) system andconsidered composition and features of the system. Comparing it with the systemof Japan in the viewpoint of information economics, the study explained thatthe system of Korea realized market supplementation by opening performanceinformation and that the system of Japan realized market supplementationthrough reliability.
In chapter 3, the study analyzed status of its acceptance through attitude for the system and survey ofthe system with collective house suppliers in Korea. The suppliers attached thegreatest importance to brand image in housing business. The suppliers were alsopassive and had a negative attitude for the total evaluation on the system.Therefore, the suppliers had the possibility to use it as a means of thepertinent object’s advantage and differentiation. It was pointed out that there were roomsfor improvement in items of performance and standard of evaluation. On thebasis of such actual conditions, the study discussed on problems andassignments of three points of housing performance indication system-obligationsystem, indication item & evaluation method and occurrence of disputes.
In chapter 4, the study made a close inquiry into the status of its acceptance by surveying demanders’ attitude for K lot-soldobject in Korea. The demanders attached the greatest importance to formation ofasset in purpose and decision-making of housing purchase and depended onsuppliers’ information media for the most part. They also requested information ofconstruction cost∙estimate most. The study pointed out lack of demanders’ understanding abouthousing performance indication system and lack of suppliers’ explanation. Demandershad low recognition about housing performance indication system and suppliers’ information was notopened enough. In the position of demanders, the study discussed on problemsand assignments in the side of application∙faithfulness∙basis to promote supply ofhousing performance indication system.
In chapter 5, the study made a close inquiry into the status of its acceptance by surveying attitudesof real estate information suppliers in Korea. The real estate informationsuppliers attached the greatest importance to site information in offeringinformation of lot-sold apartment and did not offer information of evaluationreport. They also kept a negative position of housing performance indicationsystem and had a passive response to offering information of evaluation report.It was pointed out most as its reason that it was difficult to get informationof evaluation report. Although accessibility to information of evaluationreport is systematically secured, the study re-verified demanders’ low recognition andsuppliers’ passive response by surveying demanders’ recognition about Glot-sold object and the field of model house.
In chapter 6, the study made a close inquiry into acceptance features and supply stage of housingperformance indication system in Korea and Japan by comparing collective housesuppliers’ attitude and evaluation between Korea and Japan. In using the system,Japan’s suppliers put a focus onreliability of object (housing goods) and Korean suppliers on advantage ofobject. The study explained that Japan’s supply stage was in the2nd stage (reliability stage of object and enterprise) and Korea’s supply stage was in the1st stage (construction stage of information service system).
In chapter 7, the study explainedestablishment and market supplementation of housing performance indicationsystem in the legal side, actual conditions and assignments in the customaryside and features of demand in Korea and Japan by arranging opinions from eachchapter. On the basis of the above performance, the study described factors ofasymmetric information in the new-built housing market and desirable featuresof housing performance indication system in Korea.
In chapter 2, the study explained features of market supplementation by housing performance indicationsystem in Korea and Japan. Through literary consideration, the study describedfunctions of social capital formation∙social welfare andfeatures of housing problem in the housing supply policy of Korea. The studyalso suggested problems by price of houses for installment sale and habitabilityas a factor of introduction of the (housing performance indication) system andconsidered composition and features of the system. Comparing it with the systemof Japan in the viewpoint of information economics, the study explained thatthe system of Korea realized market supplementation by opening performanceinformation and that the system of Japan realized market supplementationthrough reliability.
In chapter 3, the study analyzed status of its acceptance through attitude for the system and survey ofthe system with collective house suppliers in Korea. The suppliers attached thegreatest importance to brand image in housing business. The suppliers were alsopassive and had a negative attitude for the total evaluation on the system.Therefore, the suppliers had the possibility to use it as a means of thepertinent object’s advantage and differentiation. It was pointed out that there were roomsfor improvement in items of performance and standard of evaluation. On thebasis of such actual conditions, the study discussed on problems andassignments of three points of housing performance indication system-obligationsystem, indication item & evaluation method and occurrence of disputes.
In chapter 4, the study made a close inquiry into the status of its acceptance by surveying demanders’ attitude for K lot-soldobject in Korea. The demanders attached the greatest importance to formation ofasset in purpose and decision-making of housing purchase and depended onsuppliers’ information media for the most part. They also requested information ofconstruction cost∙estimate most. The study pointed out lack of demanders’ understanding abouthousing performance indication system and lack of suppliers’ explanation. Demandershad low recognition about housing performance indication system and suppliers’ information was notopened enough. In the position of demanders, the study discussed on problemsand assignments in the side of application∙faithfulness∙basis to promote supply ofhousing performance indication system.
In chapter 5, the study made a close inquiry into the status of its acceptance by surveying attitudesof real estate information suppliers in Korea. The real estate informationsuppliers attached the greatest importance to site information in offeringinformation of lot-sold apartment and did not offer information of evaluationreport. They also kept a negative position of housing performance indicationsystem and had a passive response to offering information of evaluation report.It was pointed out most as its reason that it was difficult to get informationof evaluation report. Although accessibility to information of evaluationreport is systematically secured, the study re-verified demanders’ low recognition andsuppliers’ passive response by surveying demanders’ recognition about Glot-sold object and the field of model house.
In chapter 6, the study made a close inquiry into acceptance features and supply stage of housingperformance indication system in Korea and Japan by comparing collective housesuppliers’ attitude and evaluation between Korea and Japan. In using the system,Japan’s suppliers put a focus onreliability of object (housing goods) and Korean suppliers on advantage ofobject. The study explained that Japan’s supply stage was in the2nd stage (reliability stage of object and enterprise) and Korea’s supply stage was in the1st stage (construction stage of information service system).
In chapter 7, the study explainedestablishment and market supplementation of housing performance indicationsystem in the legal side, actual conditions and assignments in the customaryside and features of demand in Korea and Japan by arranging opinions from eachchapter. On the basis of the above performance, the study described factors ofasymmetric information in the new-built housing market and desirable featuresof housing performance indication system in Korea.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿