▲ Seoul Family Court and Seoul Administrative Court
A court has ruled that orders issued by a local government to building owners, who had been occupying parts of the road in front of their buildings for use as parking lots or flower beds, to restore the land to its original state are legitimate.
The 4th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Kim Young-min) recently ruled against the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by three building owners, including a person identified as A, against the head of the Gwanak-gu Office, seeking to cancel the "order for restoration of unauthorized road occupancy."
In November 2024, building owners including A received an order from Gwanak-gu stating, "A cadastral survey has confirmed that the land you have been using is a road owned by the Seoul Metropolitan Government; restore it to its original state by December 2024."
A and the others had been using parts of the road as parking spaces and flower beds.
In February of last year, A and the others filed an administrative lawsuit, claiming that "the restoration order based on the premise of unauthorized road occupancy is illegal," but the court did not accept any of their arguments.
First, regarding the plaintiffs' claim that they had acquired ownership through prescription by occupying the road for a long time, the court ruled that "administrative property cannot be subject to acquisitive prescription."
Acquisitive prescription refers to a legal right that allows one to obtain ownership of real estate if it is occupied peacefully for a certain period, even without initial ownership.
The court explained that the road in question is administrative property designated as a Seoul Metropolitan Government road according to a 1978 public notice, and that A and the others failed to prove that the road was not administrative property.
The court also rejected the claim that they had "received road occupancy permits during the building permit process."
The court stated, "Road occupancy permits processed alongside building permits remain valid only within the scope necessary during the construction process," adding, "A separate road occupancy permit must be obtained after the construction is completed."
The court ruled that the local government's action was lawful, stating, "While the restoration may partially limit the use of the plaintiffs' buildings, the public interest achieved by the measure is not less significant than the disadvantages suffered by the plaintiffs."
A and the others have appealed the decision.
(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.