Goyang City Refutes Allegations of "Administrative Bias" in Pung-dong Officetel Case: "Distorted Facts"

Non-Disclosure of Information and Interpretation of the Building Unit Sale Act
External Authorities Also Deem City's Actions "Appropriate"

City: "No Protection of Specific Interests... Legal Basis Clearly Established by Ministry of Government Legislation"

Goyang Special City in Gyeonggi Province (Mayor Lee Donghwan) has officially refuted recent claims of "administrative bias" related to an officetel in Pung-dong, stating that "the facts have been distorted." The city emphasized that all administrative procedures were handled fairly based on relevant laws and the judgment of higher authorities.

Goyang City Hall view. Provided by Goyang City

First, regarding suspicions of information concealment due to the "non-disclosure of design documents and permit-related materials" raised by some buyers, Goyang City firmly denied the allegations.

The city explained that, in accordance with the "Act on Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies," it made a non-disclosure decision after thoroughly reviewing the opinions of third parties and relevant laws. Furthermore, both the Information Disclosure Review Board and the Gyeonggi Province Administrative Appeals Commission later ruled that this decision was legitimate and appropriate.

Additionally, the city clarified that in the ongoing lawsuit between the developer and the buyers, design documents are being submitted if the court orders their disclosure. Therefore, the claim that the city is concealing materials to protect specific interests is not true.

The city also rejected the allegation that the process of receiving installment payments (contract deposits) violated the "Building Unit Sale Act."

Goyang City stated that its assessment was based on a legal interpretation case from the Ministry of Government Legislation (Case No. 25-0699). According to this interpretation, under the "Building Unit Sale Act," "at the time of contract signing" does not simply mean the moment when the contract document is signed and stamped. Rather, it refers to the point at which there is "substantial mutual agreement" on the essential and important matters of the sales contract.

In the case of the officetel in question, the developer published advertisements in daily newspapers specifying key information such as the target units, sales price, and payment schedule. Subsequently, buyers paid deposits for specific units and amounts. Considering these factors, the city explained that there was clear mutual agreement on the essential terms of the contract.

Accordingly, the city maintains that it cannot be considered a violation of the "Building Unit Sale Act" to have received the deposits, and that this does not constitute grounds for an administrative fine.

The city emphasized that all decisions, including the non-disclosure determination and the assessment of any legal violations of the "Building Unit Sale Act," were made consistently according to applicable laws.

In particular, the city highlighted that decisions by external and higher authorities such as the Information Disclosure Review Board, the Gyeonggi Province Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Ministry of Government Legislation have all upheld the city's actions. Thus, the claim that administrative procedures were carried out to benefit specific stakeholders lacks sufficient basis.

A Goyang City official stated, "Although this matter has been handled according to legal judgments and procedures, we regret that some inaccurate information is spreading. Goyang City will continue to provide fair administration based on law and principles so that citizens can trust the city’s governance."

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