1. The Client’s Crisis

The client (the administrative agency) was carrying out the task of designating and managing exemption training institutions for motorized water leisure craft operator licenses under the Water Leisure Safety Act. The plaintiff (an incorporated association) had been designated as an exemption training institution and had been conducting training that exempted trainees from the license examination after completion of the course. However, because its training performance fell far short of the standards for re-designation, the client issued a disposition excluding six of the plaintiff’s training centers from designation as exemption training institutions. In response, the plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition and argued that the disposition constituted an abuse or deviation of discretionary power.

2. Key Issues

There were two major issues in dispute in this case. First, whether the legal basis for the disposition excluding an exemption training institution from designation was a mandatory act or a discretionary act. The plaintiff argued that, because the relevant statutes contained no express provision regarding exclusion from designation, the disposition itself was unlawful. Second, even if it was a discretionary act, whether the disposition deviated from or abused discretion by violating the principles of proportionality or equality. The plaintiff argued that it was excessive to impose an exclusion from designation immediately without first taking step-by-step measures such as a first corrective request or suspension of business.

3. The Defense Strategy

Attorney Partner Park Sang-jin established a defense strategy that multilayered the legality of the disposition.

First, he demonstrated that although the disposition in this case was a discretionary act, the exercise of that discretion was lawful. He systematically constructed the legal theory that the Water Leisure Safety Act and its Enforcement Decree prescribe personnel, equipment, and facility standards as the requirements for designation as an exemption training institution, and that if those requirements are not met, the administrative agency may exclude the designation at its discretion.

Second, he explained that there was no deviation from or abuse of discretion by showing the specific circumstances that led to the disposition. He presented evidence that the client re-designated the exemption training period in July 2017 by reducing it from the previous period, that the plaintiff failed to meet the training performance standards during that re-designation period, and that these facts were confirmed during the re-designation review process. He also showed that the client changed the training period after consultation at a meeting with persons in charge of exemption training institutions and that it had secured procedural legitimacy by evaluating performance over a sufficient period.

Third, in response to the plaintiff’s argument that the proportionality principle was violated, he emphasized that the operator’s license for a motorized water leisure craft is closely tied to public safety on the water, so the strict application of standards to exemption training institutions is justified. He argued that if training that merely appears formal is conducted at centers with insufficient training performance, the effectiveness of the licensing system would be undermined, and therefore the disposition excluding designation does not violate the proportionality principle.

4. Outcome and Relief

The Incheon District Court accepted Attorney Park Sang-jin’s arguments and held that the disposition in this case was a discretionary act, and that the exercise of that discretion was reasonable and did not violate the principles of proportionality or equality, thereby dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims. The client was able to have the legitimacy of the administrative disposition concerning the management of exemption training institutions confirmed by the court, and could stably carry out its administrative function of maintaining a safe water leisure environment.

Attorney in Charge: Attorney Partner Park Sang-jin

To protect confidentiality, this case has been partially de-identified to the extent that it does not undermine the essence of the case.