이전
Represented Incheon Yeonsu-gu as an auxiliary participant for the defendant and achieved a victory in a lawsuit where Incheon Namdong-gu sought the cancellation of a decision designating a reclamation zone against the Minister of the Interior and Safety (Supreme Court, Judgment pronounced on January 14, 2021, Case No. 2016Chu5094).
다음
- Type
-
最近の業務事例
- Published on
- 2021.01.14
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.