Demolition order 20 years after purchasing the building... Law: “Failure to specify the subject of correction is illegal”

Local government claims “violation of building laws through unauthorized expansion”
Owner files suit for cancellation after administrative appeal is dismissed
Court rules in favor of plaintiff: “Corrective order should be revoked”

A court ruled that if a local government fails to specify the target while issuing a corrective order for an unauthorized extension of a building, the measure is illegal. It is judged that the target for correction is ambiguous and thus violates the principle of clarity.

On the 23rd of last month, the 1st Administrative Department of the Gangneung Branch of the Chuncheon District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the lawsuit filed by Mr. A against the local government to cancel the order to correct the violating building.

Previously, Mr. A's spouse purchased a neighborhood living facility in Gangneung, Gangwon-do in December 2003 and completed the transfer of ownership registration. Afterwards, the spouse passed away and Mr. A received the inheritance. In February of last year, the local government ordered the restoration of the building, saying it was acknowledged that the building had been expanded without permission and violated building laws.

Accordingly, Mr. A filed an administrative appeal to cancel the correction order, but it was dismissed, and he later filed an administrative lawsuit. During the lawsuit, Mr. A claimed that he had never committed any illegal acts, such as expansion, in relation to the building in question. In particular, he emphasized that although more than 20 years have passed since the building was purchased, the local government has not raised a single issue during this period.

The first trial deemed the local government’s corrective order to be justified and dismissed Mr. A’s claim. The first trial court stated, “Considering the legislative purpose of the Building Act, which aims to contribute to the promotion of public welfare by improving the safety, function, environment, and aesthetics of buildings, it is judged that the public interest sought to be achieved is greater than the private interest infringed by the disposition of this case.”

However, the appellate court’s decision was different. The appellate court ruled, “The disposition in this case does not specifically state the area and location occupied by the unauthorized expansion of the building, as well as the date and type of the violation,” and ruled, “Therefore, the disposition in this case is illegal because it cannot be seen that the object or content of the correction order was clearly specified enough for Mr. A to recognize it.”

Attorney Park Da-jeong of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “The local government’s disposition did not include data such as drawings or photos that could specify which parts are subject to restoration,” adding, “In other words, this is nothing more than an assumption without any objective basis.” At the same time, he added, “There is no data to acknowledge that Mr. A had expanded the building without permission after acquiring ownership of the building in this case, and even considering the acquisition process, it is difficult to say that Mr. A was able to know this information.”

Digital Content Team

[View full article]
Demolition order 20 years after purchasing the building... Law “Failure to specify the subject of correction is illegal” (Shortcut)