When a Public Institution Suddenly Revokes Your Permit — How to Uncover the Real Reason Behind “Ceiling Repairs”
An administrative agency grants you permission.
You have secured the venue. You have recruited participants. You have made posters. You have even paid the rental fee.
Then, only a few days before the event, you suddenly receive a notice.
The facility cannot be used due to construction work.
If the reason is truly construction, you may feel there is nothing you can do.
But the story changes if, one day before the cancellation notice, the person in charge says something like this.
I saw the poster. It seems people keep calling us because of it.
And then this as well.
We are doing this under instructions from the district office, and we heard comments implying that your event could become a problem.
Then the key administrative question becomes simple.
Was the permit really revoked because of construction?
Or was the reason written on paper different from the real reason?
This is based on the actual 2017 case involving the cancellation of a venue reservation for the Queer Women’s Sports Festival in Dongdaemun-gu. The court later found the cancellation unlawful, and the appellate court further held that it constituted discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court confirmed the lower court’s decision on August 19, 2022.
But there is one more point I want to focus on in this case.
If this happened to me, what could I have done at the very moment the administrative measure was taken?
The First Question Is “Why Was It Cancelled?”
An administrative agency cannot simply reverse a permit it has already granted just because it changed its mind.
This becomes especially important when the public facility is administrative property and the permission to use it has the legal nature of a public-law permit.
The Supreme Court does not view permission to use or profit from national or public administrative property, or the cancellation of such permission, merely as a private contractual relationship.
In Supreme Court Decision 96Nu17325, decided on April 11, 1997, the Court held that cancellation of permission to use administrative property is an act performed by the managing authority from a superior position of public power, and therefore constitutes an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation. The Court also stated that if cancellation of the use permit causes excessive disadvantage to the other party, it may be unlawful as an abuse or deviation of discretion.
Therefore, if your reservation for a public gymnasium, performance hall, or similar public facility is cancelled, the first things to check are these three points.
First, who granted the permission?
Second, under what law, ordinance, or regulation was the permission granted?
Third, what grounds for cancellation are provided under that legal basis?
The available remedy may differ depending on whether you merely entered into a civil lease contract with a facilities management corporation, or whether the corporation exercised delegated authority to grant permission for the use of local government administrative property.
So it is not safe to assume that “because it is a public institution, an administrative appeal is always available.”
The first task is to determine whether the action qualifies as an administrative disposition.
What Was Especially Suspicious in This Case?
The Queer Women’s Network received permission from the Dongdaemun-gu Facilities Management Corporation on September 19, 2017, to use the sports facility.
About a week later, around September 26, the corporation notified them that the reservation was cancelled due to ceiling construction.
At first glance, this may look like an unavoidable cancellation for facility repairs.
But when the surrounding facts are added one by one, the picture changes.
A corporation official reportedly said before the cancellation that complaints were being made about the LGBTQ-related event, and that the district office had also mentioned that the event could become a problem.
There was another even more decisive point of comparison.
The group whose reservation was cancelled asked for an alternative date if the construction schedule could not be adjusted, but the request was rejected.
However, it was later confirmed that another daycare event, scheduled during the same construction period, was offered a date adjustment. The appellate court considered this difference as one of the important grounds for its decision.
This kind of material is important in administrative cases.
Administrative agencies usually issue written dispositions.
And those written dispositions state the official reason.
But in cases challenging illegality, sometimes the process by which the disposition was made matters more than the reason written in the disposition notice.
Why It Is Hard to Fight Based Only on the Sentence “It Was Because of Construction”
Let’s take an example.
A nonprofit organization receives permission to hold a discussion event at a district office facility.
Five days before the event, the permission is suddenly cancelled due to “safety concerns.”
If the organization only has the cancellation notice, there may not be much it can say.
The safety issue was not that serious.
The administrative agency may respond as follows.
It was unavoidable for facility safety.
Then the dispute becomes a fight over whether the facility was safe or dangerous.
But suppose an information disclosure request reveals internal review reports and official correspondence from the day before the cancellation, including the following:
- Reports that many complaints had been filed about the event
- Discussions between the higher-level agency and the facility manager
- Internal review of the nature of the event
- Provision of an alternative date for another event with similar safety issues
Then the issue itself changes.
It shifts from
“Was the facility dangerous?”
to
“Was facility safety really the reason for the cancellation?”
This difference is extremely important when structuring the facts in an administrative appeal or administrative lawsuit.
How Strong Must the Reason Be to Cancel a Permit Already Granted?
The first-instance court’s reasoning in this case is also worth noting.
Although the first-instance court ultimately did not accept the damages claim, it made an important finding regarding the unlawfulness of the reservation cancellation itself.
The court held, in substance, that the mere existence of planned construction was not enough to show a change in circumstances or a serious public interest need sufficient to justify ending the existing reservation permission, and that the unilateral cancellation was unlawful given that there had been an opportunity to coordinate the schedule.
This raises an important issue in administrative law.
Even if an administrative agency has discretion, it cannot decide matters for any reason whatsoever.
If the agency considers improper factors, omits important factors, treats similar cases differently without special reason, or loses the balance between the disadvantage suffered by the other party and the public interest pursued, deviation or abuse of discretion may become an issue.
The Supreme Court has also held, in relation to cancellation of permission to use administrative property, that where the disadvantage suffered by the other party is excessive compared with the degree of violation, the disposition may fall outside the bounds of discretion.
Therefore, in permit cancellation cases, the question is not simply:
Is there a legal ground for cancellation?
One must also ask:
Why was it cancelled at this particular time, were there other options, and was the same standard applied to comparable people or groups?
Is It a Problem If Others Were Accommodated but I Was Not?
Not always.
Each case may have its own differences.
However, if people in the same position are treated differently without a reasonable basis, an issue under the principle of equality may arise.
The appellate court in this case emphasized this point more strongly.
Based on the principle of equality under Article 11(1) of the Constitution, the court held that it is unlawful for the state, local governments, or other public-law entities to exclude certain persons from the use of public facilities without reasonable grounds on the basis of sexual orientation or similar grounds.
The court also found that the measures taken by Dongdaemun-gu and the corporation constituted discrimination based on sexual orientation and related grounds.
As a result, the court ordered payment of 9 million KRW in total compensation for emotional distress: 5 million KRW to Unninetwork and 1 million KRW each to four activists. This decision became final when the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without further review.
When translated into administrative practice, this raises one important question.
How were others in a similar position treated?
This can be a surprisingly powerful question in permit cancellation, rejection from public support programs, denial of facility use, and various sanctions.
Could an Administrative Appeal Have Been Filed Immediately?
This requires some caution.
Not every “reservation cancellation” by a public institution is automatically subject to administrative appeal.
The legal nature of the sports facility, the ordinance or regulation underlying the use permission, the entity exercising the authority, and whether that authority was lawfully delegated to the facilities management corporation must all be checked.
However, if the public facility is administrative property and the use permission qualifies as a public-law permission, then under Supreme Court precedent, both the permission to use the facility and its cancellation may likely be recognized as administrative dispositions.
In that case, an administrative appeal such as a revocation appeal against the cancellation of the venue-use permit may be considered.
There are also actual administrative appeal cases involving cancellation of approval for performance hall reservations.
But there is one even more important issue here.
The event was only one week away.
What Is the Point of Winning an Administrative Appeal After the Event Is Already Over?
In this type of case, timing may matter more than the merits.
Even if you file an administrative appeal and receive a decision months later stating:
The reservation cancellation was unlawful.
the original event cannot be restored if the date has already passed.
That is why, in this type of case, one should consider suspension of execution together with the main appeal.
The structure is essentially this:
Please have the appeals commission fully review whether the reservation cancellation was lawful. But until that decision is made, please temporarily suspend the effect of the cancellation disposition.
If, as in this case, the event date is imminent and irreparable harm may realistically occur, there is reason to actively consider requesting suspension of execution.
However, suspension of execution is not granted automatically just because an application is filed. The nature of the disposition, urgency, irreparable harm, and any risk of serious impact on the public welfare must all be examined case by case.
So in this kind of case, “when to act” matters as much as “whether you can win.”
The Materials I Would Secure First If I Were the Party in This Case
This is where the practical side becomes even more important.
When disputing with an administrative agency, it is often better to build an evidence map first rather than begin with lengthy arguments.
In this case, at minimum, the following materials should be reviewed.
① Original Reservation Application and Use Permit
Confirm what was applied for and what was approved.
It is also important to check whether the nature of the event was disclosed from the beginning.
② Reservation Cancellation Notice
Check the exact official reason for cancellation.
Whether the wording says “ceiling construction,” “safety,” or “other reasons” may determine the later issues in dispute.
③ Call Records, Text Messages, and Emails with the Person in Charge
These can provide clues as to whether the official reason matches the actual decision-making process.
In this case, the statements made by the person in charge immediately before the cancellation were important circumstances suggesting a background other than construction.
④ Construction Plan and Construction Schedule
It is necessary to confirm when the construction was decided.
The issue may change depending on whether the construction was suddenly decided after the permit was granted, whether it had already been planned, and whether construction absolutely had to take place on the event date.
⑤ Internal Approval Documents and Correspondence Between the District Office and the Corporation
If necessary, an information disclosure request may be considered.
These materials can help identify who ordered the cancellation, what complaints were received, and what reasons were actually reviewed.
⑥ Records of How Other Reservations During the Same or Similar Period Were Handled
This was a very important point in this case.
It was confirmed that another daycare event was given a date adjustment when its reservation overlapped with the construction schedule.
When arguing the principle of equality or deviation and abuse of discretion, comparable cases can be much stronger evidence than simply saying, “I was treated unfairly.”
Administrative Appeal Is Not the Only Answer
This case is useful because it shows that several remedies may exist at the same time for one unfair public institution decision.
1. Administrative Appeal and Administrative Litigation
If the action qualifies as an administrative disposition, these procedures can be used to challenge the cancellation itself.
If the event is imminent, suspension of execution should also be considered.
2. Complaint to the National Human Rights Commission of Korea
The parties in this case actually filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission of Korea.
In 2019, the Commission recommended that Dongdaemun-gu and the corporation establish measures to prevent discrimination against sexual minorities in connection with facility reservations.
3. Information Disclosure Request
This can serve as a way to secure evidence showing the background of the disposition.
It may be filed before an administrative appeal or in parallel with it.
4. State Compensation or Civil Damages Claim
If the event has already been cancelled and reversing the disposition alone cannot repair the harm, a separate damages issue remains.
In this case, a damages lawsuit was ultimately filed, and the appellate court recognized a total of 9 million KRW in compensation for emotional distress, which became final at the Supreme Court.
The important point is that these four procedures do not have the same purpose.
Do you want to stop the disposition?
Do you want to know why the decision was made?
Do you want a finding that discrimination occurred?
Do you want compensation for harm already suffered?
The procedure you choose first depends on your objective.
What Can an Administrative Agent Do Here?
An administrative agent cannot represent a party in a damages lawsuit before the court.
Court representation is the role of an attorney.
However, before a case reaches court, there is a significant amount that can be done at the administrative stage.
The Certified Administrative Scrivener Act provides that administrative agents may prepare documents to be submitted to administrative agencies and act on behalf of clients in submitting such documents.
For example, in a case like this, an administrative agent may review or assist with:
- Confirming the legal basis and competent authority for the disposition
- Organizing case materials such as the permit and cancellation notice
- Reviewing whether the matter is an administrative disposition subject to administrative appeal
- Preparing and submitting documents to administrative agencies, including administrative appeal petitions
- Preparing information disclosure requests
- Arranging facts and evidence in chronological order
- Researching similar dispositions and administrative appeal decisions
- Organizing documents for other administrative remedies, such as a human rights complaint, where necessary
In my view, among these tasks, what materials to secure first is often more important than what arguments to make.
If you read only the disposition notice prepared by the administrative agency, you are fighting within the frame created by that agency.
But if you add call records, internal correspondence, the timing of the construction decision, and how similar cases were handled, the frame of the case itself may change.
If You Receive This Kind of Disposition, Check These First
If a public institution suddenly cancels a permit, approval, or venue reservation, it is generally helpful to check the following in order.
1. Secure the Cancellation Notice
If you were notified only verbally, confirm whether there is a written disposition and what the official reason is.
2. Confirm the Legal Basis of the Original Permission
Whether the basis is a statute, ordinance, or internal regulation may affect whether the action qualifies as a disposition and what remedy is available.
3. Find the Cancellation Clause
Check whether the reason asserted by the institution actually falls within the stated grounds for cancellation.
4. Preserve Materials From Before and After the Cancellation Decision
It is best not to delete text messages, emails, call logs, guidance from the person in charge, posts, or related materials.
5. Check Whether There Are Comparable Cases
If others in the same situation were allowed to proceed or were given alternative dates, that may become important evidence.
6. Check the Deadlines First
Administrative appeals and administrative lawsuits have filing periods, and if the event, business, or project schedule is imminent, the practical value of suspension of execution must be reviewed quickly.
The One Sentence I Consider Most Important in This Case
The reason written by an administrative agency in a disposition notice is not always the whole story.
It was because of construction.
It was because of safety.
It was because of internal standards.
It was based on a comprehensive assessment.
Those statements cannot be assumed false from the start.
But if there are suspicious circumstances, you need to ask one level deeper.
When did that reason arise?
Who made the decision?
Was the same standard applied to others?
Was there truly no less restrictive alternative?
Once you start turning the answers to these questions into evidence, simple unfairness can become an administrative-law issue that can be challenged.
In the 2017 Queer Women’s Sports Festival case, the official reason given at the time of cancellation was ceiling construction.
But through the human rights complaint and litigation, the substance of the construction schedule, the treatment of other facility users, and the circumstances before and after the cancellation were all reviewed. Ultimately, the court recognized not only an unlawful reservation cancellation, but also discrimination based on sexual orientation.
So if your permit from a public institution is cancelled, you do not have to give up after reading just one disposition notice.
However, whether an administrative appeal is available may depend on what kind of public facility is involved, who granted the permission, and what law or regulation the permission was based on.
If you have the original permit and the cancellation notice, those two documents are the first place to begin.