Legalization Possibility Emerges... Yet Still Treated as Illegal: Gwangju Nam-gu 'Gudususeonso'

August 2015 'Legal Operation Possible with Occupancy Fee Payment' Road Act Enforcement Decree Amendment

Strict Local Standards... 'Road Width, Visibility, Nearby Merchants, Urban Aesthetics,' etc.

All 14 Repair Shops Not Fully Legalized...

[Asia Economy Honam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Park Jin-hyung] A shoe repair shop that people urgently look for when the heels of their shoes wear out and make an unpleasant metallic noise while walking down the street.

It is a convenient facility in daily life that can quickly make shoes look new with a short investment of time, but it is still treated as an illegal occupation and considered a nuisance.

Although the Road Act was revised in August 2015, opening the way for legal business operations, the reality points in the opposite direction.

According to Nam-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, as of the 7th, there are currently 14 shoe repair shops in Nam-gu, but none of them are legalized.

All of them operate by paying compensation fees 20% higher than the occupation fees illegally.

Article 55 of the revised Enforcement Decree of the Road Act (Structures, etc. that can obtain occupation permits) stipulates the types of structures, objects, and other facilities that can occupy roads.

The decree explicitly mentions shoe repair shops, but the illegal label still attached to most of these socially vulnerable groups has not been removed, raising concerns that the administration is causing 'over-criminalization.'

The cause can be found in Nam-gu's lukewarm promotion of the legalization system for shoe repair shops and the excessively strict permit standards it has set on its own.

First, there has never been a place to actively explain or promote the fact that the Road Act was amended to include the 'shoe repair shop permit system.'

In fact, even though seven years have passed since the law was revised, no shoe repair shop in Nam-gu has ever submitted a permit application. This is analyzed as a lack of promotion.

In fact, Mr. Gu, a grade 5 disabled person operating a shoe repair shop in Wolsan-dong, Nam-gu, was completely unaware of the procedure to submit an application to obtain a business permit.

In particular, because his shop is considered illegal, he has not been able to receive electricity supply from KEPCO and has been drawing electricity from another building, which caused spark problems and made him anxious about fire risks.

For Mr. Gu, the 'permit' is, in a way, a 'lifeline.' He only vaguely knew from KEPCO, not the local district office, that "if you bring a permit, we can supply electricity."

All of these issues would be resolved if legalized under the revised Road Act of 2015.

Even if Mr. Gu applies for a permit, it is questionable whether he can meet the permit standards set by Nam-gu itself.

According to those standards, to operate a shoe repair shop, a sidewalk width of 2 meters must be secured, and it must not significantly obstruct the view of vehicles turning right at intersections. Consent from nearby merchants and the level of urban aesthetics must also be considered.

Judging by these standards, Mr. Gu's shoe repair shop secured a sidewalk width of 1.6 meters, which is 0.1 meters wider than the minimum sidewalk width (1.5 meters) stipulated by the Road Act, but it is 0.4 meters short of the standard sidewalk width (2 meters), so it is expected to have been denied permission.

A sidewalk width of about 1.6 meters is enough for two average adults to pass safely, and since it is not crowded, the impact on pedestrians is minimal. There is also an opinion questioning the necessity of consent from nearby merchants who are not in the same industry.

If Mr. Gu had opened a shoe repair shop in Dong-gu, a neighboring autonomous district, would it have been different? The answer is 'possibly yes.'

Between 2015 and 2016, Dong-gu flexibly judged by considering the circumstances of each road and region in line with the purpose of the Road Act revision, granting permits to 33 out of 75 shops in the district.

At that time, Dong-gu operated in a way to grant permits as much as possible if on-site inspections showed that pedestrian traffic and vehicle flow were not significantly obstructed and there were no serious safety threats.

They did not set uniform standards such as how many meters of road width must be secured but judged permit eligibility on a case-by-case basis.

Of course, currently, Dong-gu maintains a policy of not issuing additional permits to prevent indiscriminate establishment of shoe repair shops. Still, compared to Dong-gu, Nam-gu's 'administrative rigidity' is clearly revealed.

It is also analyzed that Nam-gu's passive stance on the permit issue is due to concerns that setting a precedent for 'permits' will lead to complaints from other road occupiers specified in the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act demanding permits as well.

Nam-gu Councilor Park Sang-gil pointed out in a phone interview with this paper, "Although a path has opened for shoe repair shops to be managed within the legal framework, the local government has ignored it for years for unknown reasons."

Councilor Park criticized, "Most shoe repair shop owners are vulnerable groups facing economic difficulties. Despite the legalization purpose of the Road Act, it is unacceptable to just stand by and neglect them."

A Nam-gu official explained, "We have established our own road occupation permit standards by comprehensively considering cases from other local governments and various circumstances. If we lower these standards according to individual cases, principles may be shaken and fairness compromised."