Background of the Conflict over the Operation Rights of Hampyeong Workplaces 'Only Affecting People with Disabilities'

"Obtained Land Use Permission" vs "Never Granted Permission"... Tug of War Over Land Use Rights

Former Trustee Raises 'Bidding Procedure Issues'... Military Dismisses as 'Not a Serious Defect'

The trustee of the 'Rainbow Disabled Workers' Workplace' in Hampyeong-gun, Jeollanam-do has changed, but the former trustee is strongly opposing this, causing difficulties in current operations. Following an objection, the dispute has escalated to administrative litigation, leading to a legal battle.

The former trustee, Foundation A, claims there were procedural issues during the bidding process and raises 'real estate rights issues,' demanding the cancellation of the new trustee selection. Meanwhile, Hampyeong-gun argues that there is no serious legal violation warranting contract cancellation and is preparing a counter-response.

Meanwhile, Foundation A, asserting ownership of the land where the workers' workplace is located, has cut off electricity, causing the damage to fall directly on the disabled workers.

According to Hampyeong-gun on the 6th, the trustee institution operating the 'Disabled Workers' Workplace' entrusted by the county changed from Foundation A to Dasom Welfare Association as of last month 1st. (Refer to our February 2nd article, 'Ridiculous Social Welfare Foundation Holding Disabled People Hostage After Losing Trustee Institution')

The county issued a first public notice for the trustee institution, but it failed. At that time, Foundation A could not formally bid due to incomplete documents, and there were no other bidders. Before the first notice, the county planned that if the first notice failed, the second would be nationwide, but due to a staff error, the second notice was issued only for Jeollanam-do and Hampyeong.

Since there were no other bidders in the second notice either, Hampyeong-gun requested Foundation A not to participate in the second but to join the third. Then, on January 16th, the third notice proceeded as originally planned with a nationwide bid, conducted for only three days considering the contract expiration. Both Foundation A and Dasom Welfare Association participated in this third notice, and Dasom Welfare Association was ultimately selected.

Foundation A then claimed the bidding process was invalid due to procedural defects such as non-compliance with the announcement period (less than 5 days).

On the surface, it is a 'procedural violation in the bidding process,' but underneath lies a complex 'real estate rights issue.' It is easier to understand this as a dispute arising because the building and land owners are different.

The workers' workplace facility itself is a shared asset built with county project funds, but the land is a corporate asset owned by Foundation A.

In April 2009, the county signed a 'Land Use Consent Letter' with Mr. B, the founder of Foundation A. At that time, Mr. B was preparing to establish the foundation, so the land use consent had to be granted personally by Mr. B, not the foundation.

After the foundation was established and Mr. B inaugurated as the first chairman, the land was incorporated into the corporate assets through donation, but the 'Land Use Consent Letter' was never rewritten.

Given this situation, Foundation A strongly opposes another institution operating the workers' workplace on its land, claiming it is an 'unjust infringement of private property rights.'

Mr. B, as an individual, personally granted the land use permission to the county, so there was never corporate-level consent, and thus there is no obligation to take responsibility.

However, the county's position differs. Considering the overall circumstances, it is reasonable to view the document as one signed by Mr. B representing the foundation, and even with changes in the trustee institution and foundation chairman, the document remains valid, according to the county.

A county official stated, "It is unacceptable to claim exclusive rights over private land that has a strong public land character," adding, "There was never a promise to grant permanent facility operation rights in exchange for land use."

Regarding the non-compliance with the bidding announcement period, the official said, "We provided sufficient explanation at the time and proceeded with consent."

Foundation A stated, "Appointing a new operator to manage the facility without resolving the land ownership issue is a clear infringement of private property rights by the county."

They added, "Mr. B personally granted land use permission as an individual, and strictly speaking, there was no corporate-level consent, so there is no obligation to take responsibility."

Meanwhile, between 2016 and 2018, the two institutions agreed to resolve the complex relationship of different owners for the facility and land by exchanging land. The plan was to swap nearby land owned by the county with the facility site owned by Foundation A, but the county council urged to consider purchase instead of exchange, so discussions did not progress.