B

Post-Retirement Local Government Tax Burden Comparison Map

3.00

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Government policy changes and differences by local government
→
Step 2 Considering relocation after retirement in late 50s
→
Step 3 Inability to compare tax and utility differences by local government
→
Step 4 Simulation of actual tax burden changes after moving

Problem

When individuals aged 55-60 planning retirement consider relocating from Seoul to provincial areas, property tax rates, regional health insurance premium criteria, water and sewage fees, and automobile tax reductions vary by local government, but there is no way to compare them comprehensively. To calculate how much monthly fixed costs would decrease after selling property and moving, and how health insurance premiums would change, they must visit 5-6 local government websites individually, making accurate comparison impossible. As a result, many people move with wrong expectations and are disappointed by higher living costs than anticipated.

Solution

On the web, users select their current residence and 2-3 candidate relocation areas, input asset and income information, and the system automatically compares annual taxes and utility costs by local government. Key features: (1) integrated comparison of property tax, health insurance premiums, automobile tax, and water/sewage fees, (2) simulation of monthly fixed cost changes before and after relocation, (3) automatic reflection of middle-aged and senior tax reduction benefits by local government.

Target: Couples aged 55-62, considering relocation from Seoul/metropolitan area to provincial areas after retirement, aiming to reduce living costs through property downsizing.
Revenue Model: Free for comparing 2 regions. For comparing 5 or more regions + customized savings report, 5,900 KRW per transaction (approx. $4.40). B2G supply to local government return-to-farming/rural settlement centers.
Ecosystem Role: Education
MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty
3.0/5
U Urgency
3.0/5
M Market
3.0/5
R Realizability
3.0/5
V Validation
3.0/5
NUMR-V Scoring System
N Novelty1-5How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency1-5How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market1-5Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability1-5Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation1-5Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.
Each dimension is scored 1-5 and weighted into grade S/A/B/C/D.
N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20

Feasibility (65%)

Tech Complexity
24.0/40
Data Availability
20.8/25
MVP Timeline
20.0/20
API Bonus
0.0/15
Feasibility Breakdown
Tech Complexity/ 40Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability/ 25Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline/ 20Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus/ 15Bonus for viable public API leverage.
Total 100 points; below 50% is filtered out.

Market Validation (58/100)

Competition
8.0/20
Market Demand
6.2/20
Timing
16.0/20
Revenue Signals
10.5/15
Pick-Axe Fit
10.5/15
Solo Buildability
7.0/10
Validation Breakdown
Competition/ 20Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand/ 20Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing/ 20Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals/ 15Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit/ 15How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability/ 10Practicality for lean-team implementation.
Total 100 points; below 50 is filtered out.

Technical Requirements

Backend [medium] Frontend [medium] Data Pipeline [medium]
Dashboard