|
More
than 50 elderly tenants have struggled to protect their right to
livelihood since being evicted on April 30, 2010. All of them were
tenants of the Gocheck traditional business market and are currently
protesting in front of Guro-gu administration office where many of
them, being aged between 50 and 80, face health risks.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) issued an urgent appeal
for the case, and received responses from the Seoul Metropolitan City
administration, Guro-gu administration, Small & Medium Business
Administration, Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and
the National Human Rights Commission of Korea. Please visit here to see all the letters in Korean.
There
are two points to be raised in regards to these responses. First, the
responses of the government agencies imply that they are unwilling to
proactively intervene in the matter. The letters say that the tenants'
right can only be protected under the Special Act on Improvement for
Traditional Business Markets or Commercial Areas (Special Act),
when the building owner submits a written proposal for reconstruction.
However, according to the letter dated on June 1, 2010, from Guro-gu
administration, the building owner has submitted a written statement to
the administration explaining that they do not intend to reconstruct the market,
yet this is in fact contrary to what they have stated in court ?and it
is their statement in court upon which the court based its ruling that
the tenants could be legally evicted.
Secondly, the Guro-gu
administration (administration from here) has asserted that it has been
trying to intervene with the building owner and the tenants. However,
no actual follow-up action was taken; or action has been taken so late
that it has been meaningless. It is proved in the fact that all the
tenants were evicted while the building owner has never submitted a
written proposal for the plan to the administration.
The
question that arises is this: If the administration did not intend to
implement its own urban plan with appropriate administrative and legal
processes, why did it launch an urban planning project in the first
place, instead of letting the urban development proceed by market
principles?
The administration has often made the excuse that
it cannot intervene in 'private matters' between building owner and the
tenants in redevelopment projects. However, all such projects,
including the Gocheck traditional business market, are planned by the
government; this is not a private issue. Yet the government has not
considered the human rights violations or acts that disadvantage the
socially weak in these processes. This is a failure to prevent human
rights violations as perpetrated by a third party ?the building owner
JungSung E&G in this case ?which compounds the government’s neglect
of its duty to properly implement its own administrative processes.
The
any forms of urban plan should place the needs of the citizens
including the tenants and the customers foremost; and it is the
obligation of the administration to carry out the proper urban planning
and apply the relevant laws and administrative process strictly, or
else it will be participating in gross injustice against the socially
weak.
The vague and inconsistent reconstruction plan submitted/outlined by the company ignores domestic law
The
letter from Guro-gu administration exposes the fact that the building
owner gave an uncertain or false statement before the court, whether
intentionally or not. The court as well as the administration has
allegedly been cheated by the building owner since the building owner
testified in court that he planned to reconstruct the market building
while currently says that he cannot reconstruct it. The administration
is still waiting today for the final plan to be submitted.
It
is strongly alleged that the building owner has not yet provided a
written proposal for the reconstruction plan in order to avoid its
responsibility to protect the tenants' livelihood such as provisions of
a temporary market and of priority for renewal of the contract in
compliance with the Special Act. Instead, the building owner evicted
all the tenants, apparently without any requirement to provide any
alternative arrangements for the tenants. This exposes a big loophole
in the laws that are supposed to protect tenants from unfair treatment
by landlords.
The reconstruction plan was the main
justification for the court judgement allowing the tenants?eviction.
According to the Act on Lease Contract, a tenant whose lease contract
has not exceeded five years can demand its renewal. However, the court
(Decision No. 2008Gadan52301) ruled that the owner could refuse a
tenant’s demand for lease renewal if the building was the target of
reconstruction; and that the tenants could thus be evicted.
On
the other hand, the building owner’s oral promises to the tenants were
completely ignored. It is testified in the court decision (No.
2008Na9674) that all the tenants who had been working in the land
leased from the ex-building owner, Gocheck Development, financially
supported the earlier market modernization project, under which Gocheck
Development planned to finance construction of the building by
increasing the security deposit for shop leases in 1989. At that time,
Gocheck Development had provided a temporary market for the tenants
during the construction and all the tenants started their market
businesses after the construction. The tenants further testified that
Gocheck Development and the current building owner verbally guaranteed
that the tenants could continue their business until the demolition and
resume their business after reconstruction, which the building owner
was obliged to do under the Special Act. This guarantee was given to
all the tenants, except the ones who entered shop leases later.
Now
the building owner claims that it cannot afford to cover the expense of
the tenants?'unrealistic' demands, the increase of social economic
uncertainty and other financial costs. The tenants?'unrealistic
demands?are in fact the ‘legal?demand based on the Special Act:
provision of a temporary market during reconstruction and the renewal
of the leases to their businesses after reconstruction. The building
owner does not have the right to ignore the law.
An inappropriate administrative process
While
the building owner has ignored domestic laws and moves on in an
inconsistent manner with its reconstruction plan, the administration
authority has failed to follow an adequate administrative process.
The
letter says that they had a meeting with both parties 13 times, a
settlement committee meeting twice, sent an official letter to the
building owner 7 times, replied to the inquiry letter 10 times, and had
a discussion with relevant officials 13 times. In addition, the
administration provided 18 out of 51 tenants with monthly allowances
for three months through a special assistance project.
There is evidence that the administration had these meetings, but what did they discuss and what have the results been so far?
The
first reply from the Guro-gu administration in regards to the inquiry
letter was sent to the tenants on 8 July 2008. The official letter (No.
15861) said that the administration cannot approve the market
reconstruction project if the building owner submitted a proposal
regarding reconstruction without providing proper alternatives and
protection for the tenants in accordance with the Special Act.
When
the tenants got a confirmation in December 2008 from Seoul Metropolitan
City administration regarding the fact that Gocheck traditional
business market is an urban plan facility that the administration
should maintain, the Guro-gu administration simply denied this fact,
and only admitted it later on February 20, 2009. Despite the
tenants?request, while the lawsuit for surrender of property against
the tenants was going on, that the relevant officials provide official
documents to prove the fact that the Gocheck market building was an
urban plan facility, the officials ignored their request.
After
being threatened and assaulted by a group of people hired by the
building owner, the tenants demanded that the Guro-gu administration
withdraw its reconstruction plans for the urban plan facility because
they found it difficult to do their business in the market. However,
the administration did not take any effective action for intervention;
it did nothing more than send an official letter urging the building
owner to maintain the proper functioning of the market, three times
between February and April 2009. The building owner did not respond to
any of those letters, and the administration has not taken further
action since then.
On June 17, 2009, the administration
contributed further to the problems of the tenant. It refused to
provide a temporary market while the building owner and the tenants
reached a final agreement for reconstruction, resulting in a breakdown
of negotiation that had finally been reached. Moreover, it was only
after all the tenants were evicted, that the administration released an
official document (Department of Local Economy, No. 15711) on May 12,
2010, saying that it did not plan to make any changes regarding Gocheck
market, and that the reconstruction project should be launched in
accordance with the Special Act. The settlement committee led by the
administration also had been initiated only in April 2010. By then, it
was too late to intervene in the situation properly because the tenants
were supposed to be evicted under the court decisions of 2008 and April
of 2010 respectively.
The neglect of administration narrated
above resulted in deprivation of the tenants of their livelihoods for
last two and half years. Whether the building owner plans to
reconstruct or to renovate the market building, the entire process
should be decided on with the administration and the tenants,
thoroughly applying domestic law and international human rights laws
which the Korean government has already ratified. The right of
livelihood is one of the fundamental rights, as a right to work and a
right to life with dignity, recognized by the government.
At
present, the administration offers loans at low interest to the tenants
in order to run their business in other places. Given the fact that the
administration has failed to maintain the urban planning facility and
traditional business market, the administration should guarantee that
the tenants can continue their business under the same working
conditions as before. Had the administration carried out its duty from
the beginning, the tenants would not have lost their livelihoods
without alternatives.
Therefore, the administration should
positively intervene and immediately provide a temporary market for the
tenants in order to maintain their livelihood. The tenants should be
able to restart their work after the building is repaired under the
same conditions as before. The building owner should take
responsibility for causing confusion and deprivation of
tenants?livelihood through their uncertain and false statement to the
court and the administration.
From July 1, 2010, the newly
elected mayor of Guro-gu has taken over the administration. The tenants
stopped protesting on the same day. The AHRC hopes that the new
administration will look into the case thoroughly from the beginning
and take proper action.
# # #
About AHRC:
The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental
organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The
Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
Posted on 2010-07-05
|
