The KMH Shilla Leisure Consortium, which was selected as the successor to the Sky 72 golf course, announced in a statement on the 18th that it would normalize the golf course early to secure employment for employees and protect small business owners.
KMH Shilla Leisure Consortium was selected as a new operator in the Sky 72 golf course bidding held in October 2020. However, the existing operator, Sky72 Golf Club, was unable to start a new business as they filed a lawsuit against Incheon International Airport Corporation, including a claim for superficies.
After about two years of litigation, the Supreme Court in December of last year ordered Sky72 to return the land to Incheon International Airport Corporation. However, Sky72 did not return the land claiming goodwill, and on the 17th, the court started compulsory execution.
The KMH Shilla Leisure Consortium said, “As a follow-up operator of the 72-hole golf course, we will work with Incheon International Airport to ensure early normal operation of the golf course.”
Then, regarding the issue of business and survival rights demanded by the tenants, he added, “We have already signed a business agreement with three small business owners in the golf course,” and added, “We will open a communication channel with other small business owners to talk.”
The KMH Shilla Leisure Consortium conducted the employment succession process for employees in front of the clubhouse at the golf course and installed two temporary tents on the same day to communicate with small business owners.
However, the day before, the tenants of Sky72 decided to take civil and criminal action against the Incheon International Airport Corporation and the executive officer’s office, which had begun compulsory execution. 카지노
On the 17th, lawyer Lee Seong-hee of the Incheon International Airport Corporation Victims Association, which is composed of Sky72 tenants, issued a statement and said, “The tenants within Sky72 convey their deep anger to the Incheon Airport Corporation and the executive officer’s office for illegally forcibly enforcing the right to live.” It is said that occupancy is acknowledged, and it is said that it will not be enforced for the lessee’s facilities, but enforcement of the golf course is the same as trampling on the livelihood of the lessee. The lessee cannot make a living if the golf course is not open,” he argued, claiming that the court’s compulsory execution was illegal that day.
He said, “Even though it is necessary to confirm and enforce the occupancy of the tenant, we will ask the executive officer’s office and Incheon International Airport Corporation for civil and criminal responsibility for violently executing the occupancy situation without confirming the occupancy situation.” He suffered minor injuries, so I will ask for civil and criminal responsibility for this.”