Mapo District vs. Eunpyeong District: Legal Battle Over Waste Facility Ownership

Mapo: "We Paid 18.8 Billion Won, Yet Sole Registration"
Eunpyeong: "The Contribution Is Only for Usage"

The legal dispute between Mapo District and Eunpyeong District has escalated over the ownership of the Eunpyeong Regional Resource Circulation Center, which was jointly funded and built by the three northwestern districts of Seoul.

On March 30, Mapo District announced, "Although we contributed 18.8 billion won as our share in accordance with the March 2019 agreement among the three northwestern districts, Eunpyeong District proceeded with the sole registration of preservation without prior consultation." Mapo District stated that it has filed a lawsuit to claim the transfer of ownership registration and is also seeking the return of its share of the funding. On the same day, Eunpyeong District responded, "We express deep regret over Mapo District's decision to file a lawsuit" and emphasized, "We will respond firmly to protect the property rights of our residents."

Eunpyeong District Office building exterior. Provided by Eunpyeong District Office.

The root of the conflict dates back to 2019. In March of that year, Mapo, Eunpyeong, and Seodaemun Districts entered into a regional waste management cooperation agreement for the three northwestern districts. The agreement established a cross-processing structure in which Eunpyeong District would handle recyclable waste, Seodaemun District would handle food waste, and Mapo District would be responsible for incinerating household waste. The construction costs for the facility totaled 35.6 billion won from Eunpyeong District, 15 billion won from Seodaemun District, and 18.8 billion won from Mapo District.

Mapo District's share was initially about 4.5 billion won. However, after the facility's design was changed to a fully underground two-story basement structure, the amount ballooned to 18.8 billion won, more than quadrupling. This accounts for 34.9% of the cost of constructing the regional recycling sorting facility. Mapo District claims that, in addition to the share of the construction costs, it also accepted all additional requirements from Eunpyeong District, including land lease fees and operational development funds.

The dispute surfaced in May of last year when the center was completed. One month after completion, in June, Eunpyeong District registered sole preservation of the facility without Mapo District's consent, stating, "The contributions are only for shared use and operational cooperation of the facility and are unrelated to ownership." In July, Eunpyeong District demanded Mapo District sign an operating agreement specifying sole ownership. When Mapo District refused, the situation escalated to a lawsuit in January of this year.

There are three main points of contention. First is the issue of ownership. Mapo District argues that, having contributed about 35% of the construction costs, it should be recognized as having a stake in ownership. Eunpyeong District counters that there is no provision in the agreement stating that payment of the share entitles one to ownership. Eunpyeong District further notes that Mapo District itself acknowledged at the time that there was no clear provision regarding ownership in the agreement, thus claiming there is no basis for such a claim.

The second issue is the rejection of recyclable waste intake. Eunpyeong District is currently blocking Mapo District's recyclable waste, arguing that Mapo District is not fulfilling its obligation under the agreement to incinerate household waste. Eunpyeong District claims, based on data from the Seoul Metropolitan Government, that the Mapo Resource Recovery Facility's operating rate will be 80.1% in 2025, meaning partial intake is sufficiently possible. Mapo District, on the other hand, argues that the facility is owned by the Seoul Metropolitan Government and that raising the operating rate would require modernization of the facility, discussions with the resident support council, and a decision by the Seoul Metropolitan Government. Mapo District insists that this is not a matter it can decide on its own.

The structure of the operating agreement is also a source of conflict. Mapo District criticized Eunpyeong and Seodaemun Districts for signing a bilateral operating agreement excluding Mapo District, thereby handling only Seodaemun District's recyclables, which goes against the original intent of the tripartite agreement. Eunpyeong District responded that Mapo District is being contradictory by demanding a schedule for the intake of recyclables while refusing to sign the operating agreement.

Exterior view of Mapo District Office. Provided by Mapo District Office.

Kangsu Park, Mayor of Mapo District, said, "We had no choice but to file the lawsuit because long-standing negotiations have been delayed and we have not received clear answers to even the most minimal and legitimate requests," and emphasized, "We will reclaim our rightful stake in the facility, which was built with the tax money of 360,000 Mapo District residents."

An official from Eunpyeong District stated, "If Mapo District comes to the negotiation table, we are ready to find a solution together at any time," but also warned, "We will respond firmly according to legal principles to lawsuits that lack justification."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.