Residents of a mixed-use residential and commercial building in Gangnam, Seoul, filed a lawsuit requesting the cancellation of the project approval for a nearby youth rental housing complex, citing infringement of sunlight rights, but the case was dismissed on the grounds that they lacked the standing to sue.
According to the legal community on the 25th, the Administrative Court of Seoul, Administrative Division 1 (Chief Judge Kang Dong-hyuk) dismissed the lawsuit filed by 108 residents of a mixed-use residential and commercial building in Seocho-gu, Seoul, against the Seoul Metropolitan Government seeking cancellation of the housing construction project approval. Dismissal means that the court ends the procedure with a judgment without examining the merits because the lawsuit does not meet the procedural requirements.
In 2021, Seoul approved and announced a transit-oriented youth housing construction project in the Seocho-gu area after review by the Public Support Private Rental Housing Integrated Deliberation Committee under the Private Rental Housing Act.
In response, Mr. A and others filed an administrative appeal requesting cancellation of Seoul's disposition, claiming infringement of sunlight and view rights, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed it, stating, "There is no legal interest to seek cancellation of this disposition." Subsequently, in March 2022, Mr. A and others filed an administrative lawsuit against Seoul.
In court, Seoul argued, "The plaintiffs reside outside the project area and are merely third parties who are not direct counterparts of the disposition. The Private Rental Housing Act, which is the basis for the disposition, does not protect environmental interests such as sunlight rights of neighboring residents. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no legal interest to challenge the effect of the disposition." The court accepted Seoul's argument.
The court also judged that there was no concern of sunlight rights infringement to a degree that residents would find unacceptable. The court stated, "B Company, the contractor of the youth housing project, already changed the building design in 2017, confirming that no sunlight rights infringement occurs in the area where Mr. A's building is located. Furthermore, according to subsequent sunlight analysis results, no households experience sunlight rights infringement exceeding the permissible limit due to the project."
The residents appealed the ruling.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
