Recent Developments

This case originated from the government's announcement on October 15, 2025, of real estate measures expanding the scope of designated regulation zones to all of Seoul and 12 regions in Gyeonggi Province. Designation as a regulation zone triggers strict regulations, including strengthened actual residence requirements and lowered Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratios for housing mortgages. The plaintiffs argued that these real estate measures severely infringed upon their property rights and, in particular, that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport intentionally misused housing price statistics serving as the basis for designating regulation zones.

In response, Lee & Ko's Administrative Litigation (Appeal) team argued that the government possesses broad discretion in formulating real estate policies. Furthermore, the team contended that since housing price statistics for September were not available at the time of designating the regulation zones, the government had no choice but to utilize existing data, and the fact that September housing price statistics were announced just before the additional designation of regulation zones did not affect the legality of the measures.

Considering the importance and urgency of the matter, the court proceeded with the trial swiftly. As a result, only two months after the lawsuit was filed, in January 2026, the court accepted all of Lee & Ko's arguments and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. This case is evaluated as one where Lee & Ko's Administrative Litigation (Appeal) team demonstrated its ability to respond swiftly and accurately to government regulatory policies.
 

This case involved an agreement signed on March 22, 2007, among the Administrative Center Complex Construction Agency, LH, and Daejeon Metropolitan City regarding the supply of tap water to the Administrative Center Complex. Under the agreement, LH and Daejeon Metropolitan City were to install water supply facilities on the outskirts of Sejong City to supply water to Sejong City, and once Sejong City was established, the construction costs were to be paid in installments over 30 years.

However, after the establishment of Sejong City, Sejong City argued that the installation of Daejeon Metropolitan City's water supply facilities became necessary due to the Administrative Center Complex construction project promoted by LH. Accordingly, based on the "Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act," Sejong City imposed approximately 32.2 billion KRW on LH as a causee burden charge.

The most critical issue in this case was the starting point of the statute of limitations (5 years) for the causee burden charge. Sejong City argued that the charge could be imposed within five years from the completion of LH's construction project, whereas Lee & Ko, representing LH, argued that the five-year period should commence from the completion of the water supply facility installation project. The first-instance court ruled in favor of Sejong City, but the appellate court overturned this decision and ruled in favor of LH. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Sejong City's disposition was illegal as it was made after the expiration of the statute of limitations.

This case is highly valuable as a precedent, as Lee & Ko's Administrative Litigation (Appeal) team established clear legal principles regarding the starting point of the statute of limitations for causee burden charges through meticulous development of legal theories, demonstrating the team's outstanding capabilities.
 

This case involved a jurisdictional dispute over reclaimed land related to a government project to reclaim the sea off the coast of Incheon to create a Free Economic Zone. In this regard, the Constitutional Court had previously ruled that the local autonomous entity that originally had jurisdiction over the public waters would hold jurisdiction over the reclaimed land. However, with the amendment of the Local Autonomy Act, the criteria for determining the local autonomous entity with jurisdiction over the public waters of reclaimed land were changed. Under the new law, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety designated Yeonsu-gu as the local autonomous entity with jurisdiction over the relevant reclamation area. Namdong-gu filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court, claiming that it had jurisdiction over the reclaimed land.

Due to the inconsistency between the Constitutional Court's existing ruling and the amended Local Autonomy Act, jurisdictional disputes frequently occurred wherever reclamation projects were underway. Lee & Ko's Administrative Litigation (Appeal) team argued that when designating the jurisdictional area for reclaimed land, the designating authority must comprehensively consider not only geographical factors but also the purpose of the reclamation project, efficient land utilization, and administrative efficiency. Through collaboration with the Constitutional Litigation team, Lee & Ko's Administrative Litigation (Appeal) team successfully handled this case, thereby presenting specific criteria for determining the local autonomous entity with jurisdiction over reclaimed land and providing an opportunity to resolve the inconsistency between the Constitutional Court's existing ruling and the new law.