Namsangol Hanok Village Near Home... Court Rules "Not a Violation of Property Rights"

"The Seoul Metropolitan Government created Namsangol Hanok Village near the owner's property, claiming that their property rights were infringed," but the court did not accept the lawsuit filed by the landowner.

Seoul Administrative Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. / Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

According to the legal community on the 4th, the Administrative Court of Seoul, Administrative Division 2 (Presiding Judge Shin Myung-hee) recently ruled against Mr. A in the first trial of the lawsuit he filed against the Mayor of Seoul to cancel the designation of a cultural heritage protection zone.

Previously, Mr. A acquired land in Jung-gu, Seoul, in May 1981, built a four-story house, and lived there. Since 1988, the Seoul Metropolitan Government has been conducting the 'Restoring Namsan's Original Appearance' project. This was because folk cultural assets designated as Seoul city cultural properties around 1977 were at risk of being damaged due to urban development projects. The Seoul Metropolitan Government relocated four scattered traditional houses to the Namsan Park site and created Namsangol Hanok Village in 1998. During this process, the traditional houses were designated as folk cultural assets and protection zones, and the land owned by Mr. A within 50 meters of the protection zone was designated as a 'Historical and Cultural Environment Preservation Area.'

In August 2021, Mr. A requested the Seoul Metropolitan Government to lift the protection zone and preservation area designations. When Seoul City refused, Mr. A filed an administrative lawsuit seeking to invalidate the notice of the protection zone designation, claiming that "Seoul City's disposition unreasonably restricted the property rights of adjacent landowners." He also argued that "this cultural asset relocation was carried out to resolve complaints from existing owners of land and buildings around the folk cultural assets."

However, the first trial court rejected Mr. A's claims, stating that "Seoul City's disposition is lawful." The court said, "There is no evidence that Mr. A's exercise of property rights has actually been obstructed or that there is a specific risk of property rights infringement," and judged that Mr. A's concern that "land value might decrease" was only an indirect damage.

The court added, "Preserving traditional houses together allows for easier understanding of the lifestyle changes of ancestors and facilitates management, which appears to be reflected in the designation of the protection zone," and "The review results of the Seoul Cultural Heritage Committee should be respected unless there are special reasons." Mr. A also filed an administrative lawsuit to cancel Seoul City's refusal, but the court dismissed it for the same reasons. Mr. A appealed the first trial rulings.

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