1. Case Overview

a. Party Represented by Barun Law

We represented the plaintiff ("Mr. A"), who applied for a road connection permit for a planned construction site to build five units of row houses.

b. Background of the Case

In October 2018, Mr. A first applied for a road connection permit to the competent Regional Land Management Office (who is the defendant in this case), but the application was rejected because the site was within a prohibited road connection area. Mr. A also lost a prior administrative lawsuit challenging this decision. Subsequently, Mr. A changed the location of the application site to avoid being within a prohibited area and reduced the road occupation area, then re-applied for the road connection permit in April 2020.

However, the Regional Land Management Office refused to accept the application for the changed location as well, stating that the new location still fell under the restrictions of Article 7 of the Road Connection Rules. This article pertains to sections where bus stops, side roads, or other community convenience facilities are installed and cannot be relocated, or where relocating them could pose a risk to pedestrian safety.

c. Litigation Details

The first instance court ruled that the road structure regulations explanation issued by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport was merely an administrative rule and did not have binding effect on the public or the court. The court also stated that the technical judgment of the administrative authority regarding the scope of the “bus stop section” under Article 7 of the Road Connection Rules should be respected to the maximum extent.

Although there was an expert assessment indicating that the additional traffic generated would not hinder traffic safety, the first instance court ruled that it was difficult to consider the traffic volume near the application site as low, and it could not exclude the possibility that vehicles exiting the site might attempt illegal U-turns.

2. Judgment

Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) Decision 2023Nu431, dated July 17, 2024

3. Grounds for Judgment

The appellate court acknowledged that while the standards for the “bus stop section” stated in the road structure regulations explanation are administrative rules, the standards presented in the explanation issued by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, which is the overseeing department for roads, should be respected unless there are special circumstances. Accordingly, applying the road structure regulations explanation to the current status of the application site, it was determined that the site does not fall within the bus stop section.

The appellate court also found that even if the road is connected to the application site, it would primarily serve the residents of the five-unit row houses, so it would not significantly increase the possibility of traffic accidents. In addition, if the road is not connected, the application site would become a landlocked area with no access to a public road, which would impose excessive disadvantages. The court also noted that the curbstone on the site had already been removed, effectively allowing vehicles to use it as a road, and therefore, it overturned the first instance judgment and canceled the Regional Land Management Office's refusal decision.

4. Our Arguments and Role

We emphasized that while administrative rules do not have binding external force, when the matter falls within the discretionary authority of the administrative body that established the rules, it is desirable for the court to respect them as much as possible (Supreme Court Decision 2017Du43319, dated January 10, 2019). We also stressed that the contents of the road structure regulations explanation issued by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport should be respected in this case.

Further, we submitted numerous on-site videos of the area near the application site to reinforce the existing expert assessment that road connection would not pose any danger to traffic near the site. We also argued that the refusal to permit the road connection essentially had the effect of blocking future construction possibilities on the application site, thus being detrimental to the client.

5. Significance of the Judgment

This case is significant as it fully considers the function of administrative rules in ensuring predictability and legal stability for interested parties and meticulously examines the traffic situation near the application site as well as the disadvantages imposed on the plaintiff by the refusal decision.

□ Attorneys in charge: Park Sung-Ho, Min Kyung-Chan and Lee Ji-Min