CONTENTS
- 1. The Client Who Sought a Busan Administrative Litigation Attorney
- - How the Administrative Litigation Attorney Came to Be Retained
- 2. Precedents Related to the Case, Explained by the Busan Administrative Litigation Attorney
- 3. Assistance Provided by the Busan Administrative Litigation Attorney
- - The Administrative Litigation Attorney Argued That There Was No Serious or Manifest Defect in the Land Expropriation
- - The Administrative Litigation Attorney Argued That the Land Expropriation Served the Public Interest
- - The Administrative Litigation Attorney Argued That the Land Expropriation Was Reasonable
- 4. The Court's Decision on the Busan Administrative Litigation Attorney's Arguments
- - If You Need the Assistance of an Administrative Litigation Attorney
1. The Client Who Sought a Busan Administrative Litigation Attorney
The client who sought a Busan administrative attorney requested the assistance of an administrative attorney at the Busan office in order to respond to the litigation in a systematic manner with the help of a specialized attorney.
How the Administrative Litigation Attorney Came to Be Retained
The plaintiff in this case is the owner of the real property, and Company A is a private business that sought to expropriate the plaintiff's real property.
The negotiations between Company A and the plaintiff for the acquisition of the real property did not proceed smoothly.
Accordingly, the plaintiff applied for a ruling to the Land Expropriation Committee, the client in this case.
The client issued a ruling to the effect that Company A would expropriate the real property in this case.
However, the plaintiff filed an 🔗administrative litigation on the grounds that Company A's business did not serve the public interest and that demolishing a building only two years old constituted a social waste.
Accordingly, the client requested the assistance of an administrative attorney in order to respond to the revocation of an expropriation ruling lawsuit with the help of a specialized attorney.
2. Precedents Related to the Case, Explained by the Busan Administrative Litigation Attorney
Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects
Article 83 (Filing of Objection)
① A person who has an objection to a ruling made by the Central Land Expropriation Committee under Article 34 may file an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee.
② A person who has an objection to a ruling made by a Local Land Expropriation Committee under Article 34 may file an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee through the relevant Local Land Expropriation Committee.
③ An objection under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be filed within 30 days from the date on which an authentic copy of the written ruling is received.
Article 85 (Institution of Administrative Litigation)
① A project operator, landowner, or interested person may, if dissatisfied with a ruling under Article 34, institute administrative litigation within 90 days from the date on which the written ruling is received, or, where the person has gone through the procedure for filing an objection, within 60 days from the date on which the written ruling on the objection is received.
3. Assistance Provided by the Busan Administrative Litigation Attorney
The Busan administrative attorney analyzed the precedents related to the case and established a meticulous strategy.
In order to obtain dismissal of the revocation of an expropriation ruling lawsuit, the Busan administrative attorney argued as follows.
The Administrative Litigation Attorney Argued That There Was No Serious or Manifest Defect in the Land Expropriation
For an administrative disposition to be void as a matter of course, the defect must be grave and clear.
However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone does not establish the existence of a grave and clear defect with respect to the expropriation of the land in this case.
The attorney emphasized that, as there was also no evidence sufficient to accept the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff's claim was without merit.
The Administrative Litigation Attorney Argued That the Land Expropriation Served the Public Interest
A land expropriation project must serve the public interest.
The land expropriation in this case may impose a certain degree of restriction on the plaintiff's exercise of property rights, but it serves the public interest.
The attorney emphasized that the client's project did not lack legitimacy and objectivity.
The Administrative Litigation Attorney Argued That the Land Expropriation Was Reasonable
The attorney emphasized that the land expropriation in this case could not be said to have lost its public-interest character, nor could the plaintiff's interest be said to be markedly contrary to the principle of proportionality, and that the decision was therefore reasonable.
4. The Court's Decision on the Busan Administrative Litigation Attorney's Arguments
The court, accepting the Busan administrative attorney's arguments, issued a decision that 'the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.'
If You Need the Assistance of an Administrative Litigation Attorney
This case was an instance in which a client who received the assistance of an administrative attorney obtained a decision of dismissal in a revocation of an expropriation ruling lawsuit.
Daeryun Law Firm operates an administrative practice group, and specialized attorneys with extensive practical experience and know-how are assisting clients with their cases.
If you are in a situation that requires legal assistance, as in the case above, please feel free to consult the Busan attorneys of Daeryun Law Firm.
This content is based on actual case studies of Daeryun Law LLC with some adaptations, and the copyright belongs to our firm.
Unauthorized reproduction, duplication, or distribution and other copyright infringements may result in legal action under applicable laws.
