1. Case Overview
A. Party Represented by Barun Law:
"Mr. A" the owner of an aging building approved for use in 1953.
B. Background of the Case:
In 2017, Mr. A acquired ownership of the building in question. While removing interior finishing materials for waterproofing work, Mr. A discovered the building in a dire state, with collapsed walls and decayed, twisted pillars. Concerned about the building's safety, Mr. A urgently initiated major renovation work.
However, the architect in charge, aware that the building's actual area exceeded the registered area, assumed there would be no issues due to customary practices. Without notifying Mr. A, the architect prepared renovation drawings based on the registered area and submitted them to the relevant administrative office.
A neighboring resident, who had a strained relationship with Mr. A, filed a complaint. Upon inspection of the renovated building, the authorities discovered that the building’s actual area exceeded the registered area.
Consequently, the administrative office canceled Mr. A's building permit and approval for use, issued a correction order, and imposed a compliance enforcement fine, citing discrepancies between the submitted architectural plans and the actual structure.
C. Legal Proceedings:
During the lawsuit, the administrative office argued that since the building's actual area exceeded the registered land area, it violated the Building Act. They claimed that partial demolition would be necessary to rectify the issue.
2. Judgment: Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2023Guhap81435), dated November 8, 2024
3. Grounds for the Judgment
The court ruled to cancel all administrative actions against Mr. A, including the cancellation of the building permit and approval for use, the correction order, and the imposition of the compliance enforcement fine, based on the following reasoning:
a. The correction order did not specify how the alleged violations should be addressed, making it unlawful.
b. The claim that the building’s actual area exceeded the registered land area was not part of the original reasoning for the administrative actions and did not share the same fundamental facts. Thus, it could not be added as a new basis for the actions during the lawsuit.
c. Considering the timing of the building's construction and its history, it was likely that the registered area did not accurately reflect the current state of the building. Given the significant disadvantage Mr. A would suffer, canceling the building permit solely because the submitted plans adhered to the registered area violated the principle of proportionality.
4. Our Arguments and Role
We argued that Mr. A, who lacked architectural expertise, had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the registered area. Therefore, he could not have anticipated or prevented the architect's violations. We also highlighted a recent Supreme Court decision (No. 2023Du62465, dated July 11, 2024,) to emphasize that ordering the demolition of facilities not previously questioned by the authorities was disproportionate and violated the principle of proportionality.
5. Significance of the Judgment
Once a complaint is filed, administrative offices often take action even when such measures lack substantive justification. In this case, Mr. A, acting to secure the safety of an aging building, faced unforeseen disadvantages, including the cancellation of the building permit and the designation of the structure as noncompliant. This ruling underscores that administrative actions taken solely based on detected violations, without considering specific circumstances or fairness, are likely to be deemed unlawful.
