Gunsan Law Office | Client Facing Revocation of a Building Permit Disposition Prevails Through the Appellate Trial With a Gunsan Attorney's Assistance

The client was a man in his forties who had carried on a family business inherited over three generations.

Wishing to expand the business further, he planned to construct a building on a new site in the region.

He prepared and submitted an application for permission to the local government, and he received the local government's position that the construction could be permitted.

However, problems arose after the permit disposition was issued.

The residents living near the site where he intended to erect the building rose up in opposition.

They eventually filed a lawsuit to revoke the construction permit disposition, claiming that the construction permit process itself was flawed.

Facing a sudden risk of having the disposition revoked, he urgently visited the Gunsan law office.

◈ Relevant Statutes

Water Environment Conservation Act, Article 33 (Permission for and Reporting of Installation of Discharge Facilities) ① A person who intends to install a discharge facility shall obtain permission from or file a report with the Minister of Environment, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Noise and Vibration Control Act, Article 8 (Reporting of and Permission for Installation of Discharge Facilities, etc.) ① A person who intends to install a discharge facility shall file a report with the Special Self-Governing City Mayor, the Special Self-Governing Province Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu (referring to the head of an autonomous Gu; the same shall apply hereinafter), as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

◈ Relevant Precedent

"Even a third party who is not the direct counterparty of an administrative disposition, where a legally protected interest has been infringed by that administrative disposition, has standing to institute an administrative lawsuit seeking the revocation or confirmation of invalidity of that disposition and to obtain a judgment on its propriety. The legally protected interest referred to here means a case in which there is an individual, direct, and concrete interest protected by the statute that is the basis of the disposition and by related statutes, and where a general, indirect, and abstract interest, which the public commonly holds as a result of the protection of the public interest, arises, it cannot be said that there is a legally protected interest."(see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du330, decided March 16, 2006)

First, the plaintiffs stated that the facility the client planned to build constituted a ‘wastewater discharge facility.’

Under current law, in order to install a wastewater discharge facility, one must report this fact to the Minister of Environment or obtain permission for the installation from the Minister of Environment.

They argued for revocation of the disposition, contending that the client had not properly notified the local government that it was a wastewater discharge facility and had not undergone the reporting or permission procedure.

However, this was not true.

Their facility was not even included within the ‘wastewater discharge facility’ defined by current law.

In order to be included in such a wastewater discharge facility, the maximum daily volume of wastewater must exceed a certain figure.

However, the maximum daily volume of wastewater projected to come from their facility was only about one-third of the standard figure.

Accordingly, their facility could not be regarded as a wastewater discharge facility in itself, and therefore the permission or reporting procedure for it was also unnecessary.

The Gunsan law office emphasized this point and requested that the plaintiffs' claims be rejected.

During the litigation, the plaintiffs claimed that significant noise and vibration would arise from the client's facility.

Given the nature of the facility operated by the client, various types of machinery would inevitably be installed, and the plaintiffs claimed that the noise and vibration generated by such machinery would have a significant effect on the surrounding area.

This claim, however, was difficult to accept.

The facilities to be installed in the client's building were a compressor and a blower. The noise produced by such machinery was not significant and did not even fall within the standards set by the Noise and Vibration Control Act.

Even assuming that their claim were true, once the building permission had been obtained, the noise and vibration reporting or permission requirements were deemed to have been completed, so there was no illegality in the conduct of the client or the responsible local government.

In addition, contrary to the plaintiffs' claim, it was added that there was no abuse of discretionary power in the building permission process.

This has introduced the account of a client who had already obtained building permission through proper means but was placed at risk of having the permission revoked because of a lawsuit filed by people in the surrounding area.

In administrative litigation, as in this case, a third party who is not the party subject to the disposition may also file suit.

In the case of a third party, suits are often filed on the ground that a legally protected interest has been seriously infringed.

If, like the client in this case, you have been sued by unexpected parties, it is important to obtain the assistance of an experienced legal team.

At the Gunsan law office, attorneys with extensive experience in administrative litigation provide systematic assistance to clients.

Beyond simply representing clients in administrative litigation, the office also provides the legal services needed at each stage, such as interpreting statutes related to administrative regulation and advising on relevant response measures.

If you are considering filing an administrative lawsuit or are involved in related litigation, you may wish to contact the Gunsan law office.