Seoul High Court: "Order to Demolish Unauthorized Dog Shelter Valid... Must Follow Legal Framework"

1st Trial "Excessive Regulation in Administrative Order" Ruled Illegal... Reversed in 2nd Trial

A second-instance court ruling has upheld the validity of the district office's order to dismantle an unauthorized dog shelter installed in a development-restricted zone.

Court logo. Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@

According to the legal community on the 30th, the Seoul High Court Administrative Division 7 (Presiding Judges Gu Hoe-geun, Bae Sang-won, Choi Da-eun) partially overturned the original ruling that favored the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by former Care representative Park So-yeon and the “Lotte Farm Dog Saving Citizens' Group (Citizens' Group)” against the mayor of Gyeyang District Office in Incheon, and ruled in favor of the Gyeyang District Office.

In July 2020, former representative Park signed a contract with Mr. A, who had been operating an unauthorized dog breeding farm for nearly 30 years in the development-restricted zone of Gyeyang-gu, agreeing to “give up the dog meat business and cooperate in adopting out the breeding dogs.” The Citizens' Group, established in September of the same year, renovated the breeding farm and operated it as a dog shelter.

In December, Gyeyang-gu issued a corrective order instructing former representative Park and the Citizens' Group to voluntarily restore (dismantle) the site, citing violations of the Development-Restricted Zone Act such as unauthorized alteration of the land's condition. In February of the following year, it also issued an order to prohibit the use of the facility due to violations of the Livestock Manure Act. In response, former representative Park and the Citizens' Group filed a lawsuit claiming that the district office's actions were contrary to the legislative intent of the Animal Protection Act.

The first-instance court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The court stated, “The installation and operation of the shelter by the Citizens' Group cannot be seen as contrary to the legislative purpose of the Development-Restricted Zone Act, and it aligns with the legislative purpose of the Animal Protection Act.” It further judged, “The Citizens' Group's installation and operation of the shelter was a reasonable act aimed at urgently rescuing and protecting abused dogs.”

Regarding former representative Park, the court recognized that “according to the records, the installation and operation of the shelter were carried out by the Citizens' Group, and there is no evidence that former representative Park was involved,” thus deeming the district office's disposition against her unlawful.

However, the second-instance court maintained the original judgment regarding former representative Park but ruled differently concerning the Citizens' Group. The court stated, “Even if it is a social activity for animal protection, it must be conducted within the legal framework unless there are exceptional circumstances,” and judged that the disposition against the Citizens' Group was valid.

The court also noted, “While the importance of animal protection is undeniable, the proper maintenance and management of development-restricted zones and livestock manure are also closely related to the lives of the people, and their importance cannot be overlooked.” It added, “Considering the social value and significance of animal protection, these circumstances alone do not constitute illegal abuse or deviation of discretion in the disposition.”

Meanwhile, on the 18th, former representative Park and the Citizens' Group submitted an appeal to the court, and the case will now be subject to the Supreme Court's judgment.

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