Administrative Litigation Specialist Attorney Assistance Case | Judgment Revoking the Disposition Denying a Building Permit

A livestock shed is not a facility that can be built just anywhere.

The installation of a livestock shed may be restricted under the relevant statutes, and prior permission may be required.

Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, Article 8 (Restrictions on Livestock Raising, etc.)

Accordingly, livestock raising may be restricted in the following areas in accordance with local government ordinances.

In this case, the administrative litigation attorney organized the logic presented by the competent local government as grounds for its disposition of refusal as follows.

In particular, the administrative litigation attorney established a strategy by noting that an 'appropriate' determination had been made in the result of the planning review conducted immediately before the disposition, focusing on the point that even the administration's internal determination found no problem with the permit.

The administrative attorney first clearly established that the planned construction site did not fall within a livestock-raising restricted zone under Article 8 of the 「Livestock Excreta Act」 or the relevant local government ordinance.

In particular, the attorney emphasized the appropriateness of the location, noting that it was situated at least a certain distance away from residential clusters in the area.

Together with this, the administrative litigation specialist attorney pointed out that the restricted-zone map submitted by the agency did not match the facts, and presented objective rebuttal materials through specific maps, cadastral maps, aerial photographs, and the like.

In this case, the client was in a state in which all of the permit standards under the relevant statutes and guidelines, including the deodorization facilities, the excreta treatment facilities, and the drainage system, had been met.

In response, the administrative attorney comprehensively combined the submitted documents, environmental design drawings, and verification materials from the design firm to specifically prove conformity with the relevant standards.

In particular, the attorney clearly organized the criteria related to the relevant statutes, adding persuasiveness to the argument.

The administrative litigation specialist attorney emphasized that, although this disposition appears on its face to be a discretionary act that the agency may freely decide, it is in fact a matter in which, as a rule, permission is granted once the prescribed criteria are met.

In particular, the attorney pointed out that the 'grounds for refusal' were not based on specific facts but amounted to no more than vague resident opposition and concern over complaints.

Accordingly, the attorney requested revocation on the basis of Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Revocation of a Discretionary Disposition)

To challenge an unjust administrative disposition decision, an accurate understanding of statutory interpretation and administrative litigation procedures is required.

Daeryun Law Firm has many administrative litigation specialist attorneys who have handled various administrative cases, including revocation and nullity of dispositions.

Through a dedicated consultation attorney system, the firm conducts an accurate legal review at the initial consultation stage and assigns a specialist attorney by case to maximize the efficiency of strategy development.

The firm also responds as a team of experts rather than alone, with experts in each field cooperating to assist with the case, including case-law analysis, litigation documents, and securing supporting evidence.

If you wish to set right an injustice through administrative litigation, please feel free at any time to entrust your case through an administrative litigation specialist attorney 🔗legal consultation booking.