1. Case Overview
The applicant had been receiving livelihood benefits when the competent administrative authority suspended those benefits.

The applicant subsequently filed an administrative lawsuit seeking revocation of the suspension and, pending a final judgment on the merits, applied for a stay of execution to suspend the effectiveness of the administrative decision.

One Law Partners, LLC represented the applicant in the stay of execution proceeding, focusing on procedural deficiencies in the decision-making process and the harm that could result from the suspension of livelihood benefits.

2. Key Issues
The principal issues in this case were:

• Whether the procedures required under applicable laws and regulations were properly followed in the process leading to the suspension of livelihood benefits;

• Whether there was a risk of irreparable harm if the suspension remained in effect and whether there was an urgent need to prevent such harm.

3. Legal Strategy
Attorney Seo-young Kang of One Law Partners, LLC argued that the administrative authority failed to fully comply with the procedural requirements prescribed by law, including providing prior notice and an opportunity for the applicant to present opinions before imposing the suspension.

The firm further emphasized that livelihood benefits are intended to ensure a recipient’s basic standard of living.

Accordingly, if the suspension remained in effect, the applicant would face irreparable harm that would be difficult to remedy through a later judgment.

Based on the applicant’s specific living circumstances, the firm demonstrated that there was an urgent need to prevent such harm.

4. Significance of the Case
The court found that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the applicant, that urgent relief was necessary to prevent such harm, and that granting a stay of execution would not have a significant adverse effect on the public interest.

Accordingly, the court granted the application and suspended the effectiveness of the decision suspending livelihood benefits.

This decision is significant because it recognizes the need to provide practical protection for beneficiaries whose livelihood may be seriously affected by the suspension of social welfare benefits before a final judgment on the merits is rendered.

Attorney Seo-young Kang | sykang@onelawpartner.com

Public Relations Team, One Law Partners, LLC | pr@onelawpartners.com