'Incheon Gonghang Gong vs Sky72' Golf Course Dispute Heads to Supreme Court

A view of the 18th hole on the Haneul Course at Sky72 Golf Club.

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The land and ownership dispute over the golf course between Incheon International Airport Corporation and the operator of the nearby Sky72 Golf Course is set to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

According to the court on the 3rd, Sky72 submitted a notice of appeal to the appellate court, the Seoul High Court Administrative Division 8-1 (Presiding Judges Lee Wanhee, Shin Jongoh, Shin Yongho), the day before. It is reported that Sky72 filed a request for suspension of execution at the Incheon District Court, asking to halt the corporation's provisional execution until the Supreme Court's ruling.

On the 29th of last month, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the corporation, in the appeal trial of the real estate delivery lawsuit filed against Sky72, just as in the first trial. The counterclaim filed by Sky72 against the corporation, demanding payment for beneficial expenses, was also dismissed.

Previously, since July 2002, the Sky72 operator had been running the golf course by leasing land owned by the corporation in Jung-gu, Incheon. Although the lease contract expired on December 31, 2020, Sky72 continued operations while asserting ownership of the golf course facilities and claims for beneficial expenses, leading to legal disputes with the corporation.

The corporation filed a lawsuit claiming land return and ownership transfer, alleging that Sky72 was occupying the golf course land without permission. Sky72 countered with a lawsuit demanding payment for beneficial expenses and a lawsuit to confirm the obligation to negotiate regarding the extension of the land use period.

In January of last year, the corporation filed a lawsuit against the operator demanding land return and ownership transfer. The first trial ruled in favor of the corporation in July of the same year. The court stated, "It is recognized that the land use period has ended as stipulated in the private investment development project implementation agreement," and ruled, "The defendant shall deliver the land and buildings to the plaintiff and carry out the procedure for ownership transfer with a time condition."

The first trial court added, "The agreement's contents cannot be considered disadvantageous to the defendant, and the beneficial expenses have either already been compensated or it is reasonable to see that the exercise of such claims has been waived according to the agreement." Regarding Sky72's lawsuit to confirm the obligation to negotiate, the court dismissed it, stating, "It is based on or related to the claims made in the preceding real estate delivery (eviction lawsuit) and other cases, so there is no independent interest to seek confirmation."

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