Administrative Litigation Attorney | Administrative Litigation Attorney Assists Client, Obtaining Dismissal of a Lawsuit to Revoke a Building Permit Disposition

The overview of the case of the client who came to the administrative litigation attorney was as follows.

A third-party builder applied for a building permit for the land at issue as a Class II neighborhood living facility, the client granted the building permit, and issued a building permit disposition for a Class II neighborhood living facility.

In response, the claimants filed a civil petition against the client regarding the building permit and related matters in this case.

The claimants were residents who operated businesses or lived near the land at issue, and they argued that their environmental interests were being infringed, or were at risk of being infringed, by the building permit and related matters in this case.

They argued that the building permit and related matters in this case were subject to permission for, or report of, the installation of a water pollutant discharge facility under Article 33 of the Water Environment Conservation Act, yet were processed without consultation and were therefore unlawful, in violation of Article 11, paragraphs 1, 5, and 6 of the Building Act.

They argued that, according to the business plan submitted by the third-party builder, it was contrary to common sense for wastewater not to be discharged during washing and similar processes in the seafood processing operation, so that the facility constituted a wastewater discharge facility requiring permission or report.

They further argued that the combined power of the machinery, such as the compressor and blower, that the third-party builder planned to install constituted a noise discharge facility, and that, given the use of an automatic packaging machine, it was subject to permission for or report of the installation of a discharge facility. They argued that, although it was subject to permission for or report of the installation of a noise and vibration discharge facility under Article 8 of the Noise and Vibration Control Act, which is a matter to be deemed processed at the time of the building permit in this case, this was unlawfully not done.

Finally, they argued that the building in this case was subject to approval under Article 13, paragraph 1 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act, yet this approval was not obtained, and that the land at issue is located within one kilometer of an intake facility, an area where the establishment of factories is restricted, so that the building permit in this case, which permitted the construction of a seafood processing factory, violated Article 7-2, paragraph 1 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act.

The administrative litigation attorney reviewed the statutes applicable to the case.

The administrative litigation attorney argued that, in the business plan submitted by the builder at the time of the building permit application, it was confirmed that no source of pollution requiring prior permission or report under the relevant statutes with respect to air pollution, wastewater discharge, noise, or vibration would be discharged, and that the client issued the building permit disposition on this basis.

The attorney argued that the claimants, in filing the administrative appeal, merely raised suspicions about the building in this case without presenting any specific basis for the claim that their environmental interests were being infringed, and that it is difficult to find a legal interest on the part of the claimants, who are not the direct counterparties of the administrative disposition, merely on the ground that their environmental interests are being infringed or are at risk of being infringed by the disposition.

At the time of the initial building permit application, the client had issued an official letter to the responsible department and received the responses that the facility “does not constitute a wastewater discharge facility subject to permission or report,” “is not subject to permission or report as a wastewater discharge facility,” and “does not constitute a noise and vibration discharge facility.” Accordingly, the client issued the building permit in accordance with the proper procedures.

The administrative litigation attorney then emphasized that, although the claimants asserted concerns about odor and environmental pollution if the building in this case were to be operated, the facility does not, according to the business plan and architectural design documents submitted at the time of the building permit, fall within the scope of matters requiring report or permission; that there is no precise basis for the concerns about odor or environmental pollution; and that, considering that there is no defect in the responsible department's permission for the development activity, the claimants' assertion of a deviation from or abuse of discretion in the permission for the development activity is a groundless assertion, so that the claimants' claim should be rejected.

The administrative litigation attorney conducted the defense as described above and obtained a judgment dismissing the lawsuit to revoke the building permit disposition.

🔗Administrative litigation involves various statutes and requires substantial proof, which makes it quite difficult for an individual to handle alone.

You are welcome to bring your case to Daeryun, whose team includes attorneys experienced in administrative litigation.