A/HRC/32/36/Add.2 corporations and foundations. It is relatively easy to establish an association. However, acquiring certain competencies – for example legal personality and the ability to raise funds from the public – requires the approval of and supervision by the authorities. 48. Article 32 of the Civil Act provides that associations and foundations that wish to acquire juridical personality must receive permission from the competent authorities. The same act provides that legal personality may be cancelled when operations are outside the scope of the purpose of the organization, or when they violate conditions attached to the permission. The requirement to seek and receive permission is inherently problematic to the free exercise of the right to freedom of association, as it severely limits the ability of associations to operate in the way they deem best. Further, vesting discretion to grant legal personality in the authorities creates opportunities to deny unpopular groups that competence. The Special Rapporteur considers that a procedure whereby associations automatically gain legal personality upon establishment of the entity alleviates those problems and is as such most appropriate. 49. Even more troubling is that government departments can altogether avoid the responsibility of considering applications for legal personality if they believe the area of work of an organization does not fall within their competence. For example, the Beyond the Rainbow Foundation, a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex association, was denied legal personality by the Ministry of Justice, ostensibly because the group works on a narrow issue of sexual minorities, whereas the Ministry claimed that it can only register groups who work on broader “general human rights” themes. The association 4.16 Sewol Families for Truth and a Safer Society faced a similar rejection of its application by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, which claimed that the proposed activities of the group, such as truth-finding, had already been carried out by government agencies. 50. Both non-profit associations and their donors are eligible for tax exemptions, which the Special Rapporteur finds commendable. However, article 4 of the Act on Collections and Use of Donations requires prior registration of fundraisers for all amounts over 10 million won (approximately $8,340) and submission of a detailed collection and expenditure plan. Fundraisers are required to state their target amount prior to raising the funds. That requirement is problematic because, while one may specify a target amount for collection, there are no guarantees that collections will not fall below or exceed the amount. Raising amounts over 10 million won without prior registration contravenes the Act and is punishable. Indeed, the authorities have reportedly rejected applications for registration under the Act, such as for the Gangjeong Village and the Miryang Power Towers Opposition Committee. In the case of Gangjeong Village, the Jeju province authorities declined to register the association because it considered that the donations would support activities opposing government policy. 51. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges the necessity for transparency and accountability in the fundraising and spending of associations, but notes that the key stakeholders in that respect are the beneficiaries and funders, not the Government. Facilitating such transparency should not be overly burdensome or intrusive, nor should it provide an occasion for the Government to supervise and restrict the operations of such organizations. 52. An overarching concern for the Special Rapporteur was the lack of robust institutional engagement of the Government with civil society. He was informed that representatives of the Office for Government Policy Coordination meet with the private sector four times a year and that is consistent with the overall approach of the Government to incentivising economic growth and development. The Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee for Civil Society Development, which is the consultative body for issues concerning civil society, was not spoken of by civil society interlocutors – a sign perhaps of its lack of impact in achieving its role of engaging civil society participation in governance. 11