Court Blocks Use of Road in Front of Building as Parking Lot: "Public Interest Comes First"

Building Owners File Administrative Lawsuit Against Gwanak District Office's Restoration Order
Court: "Road Occupancy Permit Only Valid During Construction Period"

Building owners who had used a section of the road in front of their property as a parking lot and flower bed objected to an order from their local district office to restore the area to its original state and filed a lawsuit, but the court rejected their claim.

On June 21, Yonhap News reported that "the Administrative Division 4 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Kim Youngmin) ruled against plaintiff building owner Mr. A and two others in their lawsuit seeking to overturn the order to restore the area after the unauthorized occupation of the road, which they had filed against the head of Gwanak District Office."

Mr. A and the other plaintiffs own land and buildings adjacent to a road in Gwanak-gu, Seoul, and had used part of the road as a parking lot and for flower beds. However, based on the results of a cadastral survey, the Gwanak District Office ordered in November 2024 that the area be restored to its original state. The office determined that the space in use was part of a Seoul city-owned road.

Seoul Administrative Court.

The building owners filed an administrative lawsuit in response. They argued that their long-term use of the area should effectively grant them acquisitive prescription and that, since the road occupancy permit was processed together with their building permit, their use could not be considered unauthorized. They further contended that, because the administrative authorities had not taken action for a long period, issuing a belated order to restore the area violated the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

However, the court found that the area in question was designated as administrative property, specifically a Seoul city road, in 1978, and therefore could not be subject to acquisitive prescription. Unlike private property, administrative property cannot be acquired through long-term possession.

The claim that the road occupancy permit had been implicitly granted during the building permit process was also not accepted. The court explained that any road occupancy permit processed concurrently with a building permit is valid only to the extent necessary for construction work. If the road is to be used continually after the building is completed, a separate road occupancy permit must be obtained.

The court also determined that the mere fact that the administrative authorities had not taken action for an extended period did not constitute an official statement allowing use of the road.

In particular, the disputed road section is an area where construction is underway to separate the sidewalk from the roadway. The court pointed out that the building owners’ occupation of the road impedes the road’s function and could affect pedestrian safety. While some inconvenience for building users might result from restoring the area to its original state, the court concluded that the public interest in ensuring a safe road environment outweighs these inconveniences.

It is reported that Mr. A and the other plaintiffs have appealed the first-instance ruling.

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