Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has learned that the administration of Guro District has not sufficiently acted to protect tenants of a registered traditional business market from eviction by the property owner. The tenants, most of them elderly, had to campaign for years to have the market rightfully acknowledged as part of an urban development plan and protected by the relevant Special Act. The act allows certain protections for tenants and privileges to owners, and gives tenants a voice in changes made to the property. However local officials have wilfully avoided assisting or intervening, and the elderly tenants have been evicted forcibly, despite the administration’s duty to protect civilians’ rights in government redevelopment projects. Police involved in the case have also not conducted an investigation into the reported assault of tenants during the eviction, and have labelled the incident a private matter. The use of this excuse is routine in the South Korean administration and it results in the neglect of the rights of vulnerable persons.
CASE NARRATIVE :
Ms. Park, Ok-ja is a 52-year-old widow and has owned a small restaurant in the Gocheck traditional business market (Gocheck Shopping Centre, Gocheck-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul) since her husband passed away in 1993. She was forcibly evicted on 30 April 2010 along with 50 other tenants. She had been paying 87,100 Korean won (USD 76.6) in monthly rent for 13sq m, and though she had reportedly not raised her food prices for 18 years, she managed to educate her two children to university level on her earnings.
More than 300 tenants like Ms. Park had worked in Gocheck wet market for decades, most of them low income, and aged between 50 to 85 years old [photo 2] [photo 3] [photo 4].
However since April 2008 the tenants have been undergoing eviction by the property after he discontinued the contract and filed a lawsuit against them. The tenants were given wrong information and advice about their rights when they made queries with the Guro district administration. The administration rejected the suggestion that the building was part of urban plan designed by the administration authority. It was later discovered by tenants that the market is officially protected by the Special Act on Improvement for Traditional Business Markets or Commercial Areas (Special Act), which was enacted in 2006, and which places it under the urban plan. This has a number of processes that restrict its renovation, and any renovation work must be agreed on by the concerned party the tenants in this case and the related association in the Guro District administration. It also allows certain privileges or concessions and the protection to the owner and tenants.
However throughout the campaign by tenants to have this recognised which included a ruling by a lower and higher court that the evictions could go ahead by the owning company, Jung Sung E&G the administration has not acted according to its administrative mandate. Even the judgment of the lower court recommended that the relevant administration be consulted in compliance with the Special Act.
After two years of protests by the tenants’ association, the district administration responded by forming a settlement committee which met on 16 April 2010. In the meeting the vice-mayor of Guro District officially announced that Gocheck market facility is part of an urban development plan, and that accordingly, any redevelopment or reconstruction should not be allowed without protection being provided for the tenants.
Yet his office has since refused to produce a written document to support this statement. No reason has been given for such a refusal.
Police negligence has also been apparent in the case. During the eviction process, which started in early 2008, it is alleged that a group hired by Jung Sung E&G threatened the tenants and their customers by walking through the facility without shirts, displaying tattoos (widely associated with criminality in the local context) and behaving in a menacing way. This intimidation caused many customers to stay away and for some tenants to leave permanently.
On 16 December 2008, such a group allegedly destroyed shop owners property, assaulted some of the tenants and stole a number of items. That visit followed the delivery of an execution writ by the lower court, yet some of the tenants to be physically pressured were not included in the writ because they had filed an appeal. Yet in response to tenants’ complaints Guro police claimed that they could not find the suspects. They then labelled the case a private matter between two parties, and not a matter for their intervention. It should be noted that firms are legally obliged to register the names of those that they employ to carry out evictions, and are legally accountable for crimes committed during such actions.
Since the market building is an urban planning-based facility, the government has the authority to permit redevelopment, or cancel or withdraw such plans after consulting with the citizens or tenants who use the facilities. However the Department of Local Economy in the Guro District administration has claimed that there was no way to protect tenants in the case because of the legal action taken, and the lack of information given to them about the development plans. Yet this attitude is not in accordance with the duties of the administration to advise and protect public interests.
With all evicted, 51 former tenants continue to demand that an official document be provided to classify Gocheck Market as an urban development plan-based facility to improve the traditional market business [ photo 5]. This will allow them to arrange for compensation for the income lost during the last two years. As highlighted by the tenants, according to article 14 of the Special Act the administration can open a temporary market during the renovation to protect the tenants’ livelihoods. Article 49 of the Act specifically states that this is the responsibility of the project manager, who should arrange for financial compensation if a temporary market is not provided. It also notes that priority and price cuts should be given to the tenants in the re-leasing of the shop spaces.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS :
Urban development planning should not be geared towards the fortunes of private companies, but rather should develop and protect social, public interests. The local government and citizens are the main actors, with citizens and their businesses being the stakeholders. Any beneficiaries, along with the government, are obliged to act in the interests of all the stakeholders’ and to protect their livelihoods and family investments.
If the owner of the building intends to renovate the market for further use, the eviction process should have been conducted in compliance with the Special Act. If the owner intended to reconstruct the building to serve a new purpose, the administration should provide an alternative business venue for the tenants, and certain privileges would be lost by the building owner. Yet the owner has not been asked to reveal his proposal. The lack of transparency in these operations raises questions of corruption in the administration.
Development-based evictions are one of the most serious, routine human rights violations taking place in South Korea currently. The incident in Yong-san, which saw the deaths of five residents and one police officer (for more details please see: AHRC-FUA-001-2009and AHRC-UAC-130-2009), is one of the gravest to expose the lack of adequate administrative planning and domestic legislation in urban development. This has also led to heath insecurity related to asbestos exposure during demolition (AHRC-UAC-127-2009). Loopholes in domestic laws have also strengthened the sense of crises and insecurity related to housing (FST-095-2009 and STM-253-2009).
This negligence by local governments promotes the continued exploitation of residents, and does not protect their economic and social rights; in this case the right to livelihood and the right to housing. The lack of assertive action by police in defense of the protesters amounts to a violation of their freedom of expression.
South Korea is a state party of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and accordingly there can be no more shirking of responsibilities by the state on the basis of development disputes being private.
Please find details of the responsibilities held by distinct actors such as project managers, corporations, private landlords and landowners in: The Basic Principles Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement.
SUGGESTED ACTION :
Please write to the authorities listed below calling for an immediate action for the victim tenants.
The AHRC has written to the Special Rapporteur on right to adequate housing, information them of this case.
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear __________,
RE: SOUTH KOREA: A call for positive action for tenants evicted by urban development plan
Name of victim :
1. Jung, Hyun-Gun, 82 years old
2. Yeon, Kyoung-hee, 78 years old
3. Yang, Jun-hua, 76 years old
4. An, Se-sung, 75 years old
5. Jang, Ae-soon, 75 years old
6. Go, Yen-sik, 75 years old
7. Lee, In-rye, 74 years old
8. Choi, Gyu-rye, 73 years old
9. Hwang, Bok-mook, 73 years old
10. Kim, Hyang-ja, 73 years old
11. Lee, Suk-woo, 73 years old
12. Hu, Sun-ok, 72 years old
13. Jang, Joo-ho, 72 years old
14. Lee, Sun-soon, 72 years old
15. Jo, Gwang-ung, 72 years old
16. Jung, Gun-young, 72 years old
17. Lee, Byong-ik, 69 years old
18. Choi, Chung-soon, 69 years old
19. Park, Jung-yeon, 68 years old
20. Lee, An-ja, 68 years old
21. Kim, Sun-yeo, 68 years old
22. Choi, Po-rye, 65 years old
23. Kim, Yi-jung, 65 years old
24. Park, Chun-ok, 63 years old
25. Kim, Dong-soo, 63 years old
26. Yun, Ho-yeol, 63 years old
27. Choi, Jum-soon, 63 years old
28. Jung, Moon-gi, 62 years old
29. Choi, Suk-ho, 62 years old
30. Lee, Soon-ja, 61 years old
31. Yim, Yun-hee, 61 years old
32. Oh, Jung-sook, 60 years old
33. Jung, Bok-rye, 58 years old
34. Jo, Hyun-ok, 57 years old
35. Kim, Sun-haeng, 57 years old
36. Kim, Chun-ja, 55 years old
37. Nam, Young-hee, 54 years old
38. Park, Yun, 54 years old
39. Lee, Jung-ja, 53 years old
40. Shin, Yun-ja, 52 years old
41. Park, Ok-ja, 52 years old
42. Park, Young-bok, 52 years old
43. Jo, Yang-soo, 52 years old
44. Yi, Min-hyung, 50 years old
45. Kim, Gil-rye, 49 years old
46. Ki, Myo-ja, 48 years old
47. Park, Jung-gu, 45 years old
48. Kim, Ji-hyun, 44 years old
49. Han, Sung-ja, 44 years old
50. Kim, Soon-a, 40 years old
51. Kim, Hyun, 28 years old
Government authorities neglecting their duty to protect the rights of the tenants :
1. Guro-go administration
2. Seoul Municipality government
3. Guro police station
Date of incident : April 30 2010
Place of incident : Gocheck traditional wet market (Gocheck Shopping Centre), Gocheck-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul
I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding 51 tenants who were evicted on 30 April 2010. I am informed that they have worked in Gocheck market, which is designated as an urban plan facility to improve a traditional market business in Seoul. Most of the tenants are elderly, in their 60s to 80s, and have worked there for decades.
I have learned that the Guro-gu administration has not intervened in the process of the eviction despite the fact that the building of the market is an urban plan-based facility, which means that they are largely responsible for determining the use of and improvements to the facility, in cooperation with the tenants working there.
I am informed that more than a total of 300 tenants worked in Gocheck market until 2008, when they were evicted, yet when they sought advice and information from the local administration, they were wrongly and negligently advised. The administration denied their responsibility to be involved in the incident.
Yet as Gocheck market is acknowledged as a traditional market, all the processes concerning it should be properly carried out under the Special Act on Improvement for Traditional wet market or Commercial area (Special Act) enacted in 2006.
I am surprised to learn that the administration appeared not to be aware of this, or of the fact that the market is a facility for urban development planning. They allegedly did not seek out the relevant documents or inquire with a higher administration, the Seoul Metropolitan City administration, even after the tenants filed a public complaint with them, and even when the case went to a lower and higher court, and the evictions ruling was passed. I am further informed that the administration continued to deny the status of the project even after Seoul Metropolitan City officially confirmed the fact in December 2008.
I am informed that it took two years of constant complaint and protest from the tenants association before the administration formed a settlement committee. The Vice-Chief of Guro-gu officially announced at a16 April committee meeting that Gocheck market is a facility for an urban development plan and accordingly any redevelopment or reconstruction should not be allowed without providing protection for the tenants.
However, the administration refused to provide written documentation of this admission, repeatedly. No explanation has been given as to why.
I have further learned that in the process of eviction which started in early 2008, a group of people hired by the company intimidated the tenants and their customers, causing many of them to leave. The men walked around without shirts, showing their tattoos and behaving in a menacing way. On 16 December 2008, such a group allegedly destroyed shop owners property, assaulted some of the tenants and stole a number of items. That visit followed the delivery of an execution writ by the lower court, yet some of the tenants to be physically pressured were not included in the writ because they had filed an appeal. Yet in response to tenants’ complaints Guro police claimed that they could not find the suspects. They then labelled the case a private matter between two parties, and not a matter for their intervention. It should be noted that firms are legally obliged to register the names of those that they employ to carry out evictions, and are legally accountable for crimes committed during such actions.
I am aware that the eviction was not conducted under the Special Act on Improvement for Traditional wet market or Commercial area (Special Act) enacted in 2006. According to the Special Act, the reconstruction, renovation, or withdrawal should be conducted in consultation with the relevant administration and tenants in order to protect the right to livelihood of the tenants.
I am of the opinion that the Special Act, reflecting international human rights standards such as International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Basic Principles Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement, has been infringed upon by the negligence of the administration. It appears that the administration is not aware that South Korea is a state party of the ICESCRand has an obligation to respect, protect, and fulfil the rights.
As you may be aware, the duty of a variety of distinct actors such as project managers, corporations, private landlords and landowners is described in The Basic Principles Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement. Not only the residential areas but also commercial areas, as in this case, have been targeted by government development or redevelopment plans in South Korea where international standards on the right to housing and development-based eviction apply. The guidelines emphasise the role of the state to respect and protect the right to an adequate standard of living, which is often violated by the development project.
I am surprised to know that despite the UN recommendations in 2009 on forced evictions related to development projects in South Korea, the government remains neglectful in this area. I therefore, urge you to take positive action to protect the right to livelihood of the tenants. I further urge you to ensure that;
1. The administrative authority officially acknowledges and provides official documents for the tenants to be protected by the law;
2. All the evicted tenants are provided with a temporary market space for their livelihood during reconstruction or redevelopment;
3. All the evicted tenants are provided with appropriate compensation for the period of their struggle since 2008;
4. All the evicted tenants are given priority as tenants after the reconstruction and redevelopment;
5. Police conduct a thorough investigation to find the perpetrators who assaulted, stole from and threatened the tenants and customers. If the alleged perpetrators are found guilty, they should be properly punished in accordance with the law.
I am aware that the 51 elderly tenants have been continuously protesting before the administrative office since they were evicted. I look forward to your immediate and positive action on their behalf.
Yours sincerely,
—————-
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Mr. Lee Myeng-Bak
President
1 Sejong-no, Jongno-gu
Seoul, 110-820
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Fax: +82 2 770 4751
Tel: +82 2 770 0018
E-mail: foreign@president.go.kr or president@cwd.go.kr or president@president.go.kr
2. Mr. Chung, Jong-hwan
Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs
1 Jungang-dong, Gwacheon-si,
Gyeonggi-do, 427-760
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Fax: +82 2 504 9004
Tel: +82 2 2110 8001
E-mail: chungceo@mltm.go.kr
3. Oh, Se-hoon
Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government
Deoksugung-gil 15, Jung-gu,
Seoul 100-110,
Republic of Korea
Fax +822-737-8688
Tel: +822-731-6060
4. Mr. Yang, Dae-woong
Mayor of Guro District
Guro District Office
435 Guro-Dong, Guro-gu, Seoul
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Fax: +82 2 860 9595 / 2 860 2630
Tel: +82 2 860 2323
5. Mr. Kim, Dong-sun
Administrator
Small & Medium Business Administration
Donsan-dong 920
Seo-gu, Daejeon 302-701
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Tel: +82 42 481 4365
6. Mr. Kang Hee-Rak
Commissioner General
Korean National Police Agency
Uiju-ro 91(Migeun-dong 209) Seodaemun-gu
Seoul 120-704
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
E-mail: cnpa100@police.go.kr
7. Prof. Hyun, Byung-chul
Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission of Korea
Gumsegi Building, No. 16, Euljiro 1-ga, Jung-gu,
Seoul 100-842
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Fax: +82 2 2125 9812
Tel: +82 2 2125 9700
E-mail: nhrc@humanrights.go.kr
——————————-
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)
