2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Preliminary claim: On June 13, 2012, the Defendant revoked the disposition of non-permission to change the construction waste interim disposal business for the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff, upon obtaining a construction waste interim disposal business license on June 9, 1998, has been running a construction waste interim disposal business in Ansan-dong and 896 and four lots of land (hereinafter referred to as “existing place of business of this case”).

B. However, as the area surrounding the existing place of business of this case is gradually developed as the factory site, civil petition was filed due to noise, vibration, dust, etc. generated in the Plaintiff’s place of business. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was promoting the relocation of the place of business to 4,357 square meters of land within the A day zone in Yangyang-si (hereinafter “the prospective site for relocation of this case”).

C. On October 25, 201, from B to November 2, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted a document stating that “The Plaintiff purchased the instant prospective relocation site in the KRW 6,520,742,00, under the condition that the Plaintiff would not obtain permission for the change of the site for the transfer from B, 2011, and on the same day, the Defendant would request consultation on the relocation of the place of business to the Defendant” due to the filing of civil complaints around the existing site for the relocation of the instant case.”

D. On November 22, 2011, the Defendant: (a) submitted a review opinion on the transfer of the Plaintiff’s site to the Plaintiff on the construction waste interim disposal business site; and (b) notified that “I will grant the transfer permission on the condition that I would like to narrow the road width (5.5m) to the extent that it would be difficult for the Plaintiff to drive a large vehicle,” and that I would like to obtain the report on the transfer of a temporary building, structure, etc. at the time of construction of the said permission (the “instant permission notification”); and (c) attached the matters to be observed by the relevant department (the law) prior to the implementation of the project, the report on the business of scattering dust generation under Article 43 of the Clean Air Conservation Act, the report on the alteration of wastewater discharge facilities under Article 33(3) of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act should be obtained prior to the implementation of the project.

E. Accordingly, on February 8, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the prospective site to be transferred, and on March 21, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “I would be able to transfer” the content of the instant notification of permission.

F. After that, on April 19, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant an application for permission to change construction waste disposal business pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act (hereinafter “Construction Waste Act”) at the Defendant’s request. The Defendant, on May 7, 2012 and on two occasions, requested the Plaintiff to supplement the application documents for permission by formulating measures to prevent the pollution of, and secure access to, nearby the proposed site for the relocation of the instant case, on May 30, 2012. Accordingly, on May 25, 2012 and June 7, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted a supplementary measure plan accompanied by a traffic treatment plan, a water drainage plan, and a concept of prevention facilities for damage.

G. On June 13, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of his refusal to file an application for permission to change the construction waste disposal business establishment (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

“In the vicinity of the site scheduled for the relocation of the instant case, there are places in each mountain (such as a gymnasium park, a mountain book, and a gymnasium square) and in our city, a well-known, a natural-type river (native river), and a residential area. In order to prevent environmental pollution such as dust scattering, etc. anticipated to be transferred the instant project, the Plaintiff requires the Plaintiff to take measures against waste disposal facilities and outdoor stations, indoor traffic communication problems of access roads (hymnasium interdunas) and measures to prevent any brus pollution caused by residues of wastes that fall on the road in the course of waste transport vehicle, but the Plaintiff takes insufficient measures, such as claiming that the roads other than the roads where the project site is located should be managed at all times in order to prevent the pollution of access roads. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s application for permission to change the Plaintiff’s place of business to prevent the environmental pollution in the vicinity of the previous site used by the multiple citizens.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 15, Eul evidence 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant notice of permission issued on November 22, 2011 was unlawful since it was a disposition to change the construction waste disposal business place against the Plaintiff, and that the instant disposition is revoked, and thus, the instant legal principle is applied to the restriction on the right to cancel the beneficial administrative act. In this case, the instant disposition is unlawful.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the notice of permission in this case is merely a public letter that respondeds to the opinion of the plaintiff's opinion inquiry council by consultation as to whether it is possible to move the place of business.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the instant notice of permission constitutes a disposition for change of the construction waste disposal business’s place of business

In order to determine the legitimacy of the instant disposition, we examine whether the instant notice of permission is the permission for change of the place of business of the construction waste disposal business.

Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Construction Waste Act provides that a person who intends to obtain permission to change a construction waste disposal business pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Act shall submit an application for permission to change the construction waste disposal business in attached Form 11 to the Mayor/Do Governor along with the following documents. However, it is interpreted that an application for permission to change a construction waste disposal business is merely a provision for the convenience of an administrative agency and that an application for permission to change a construction waste disposal business is a written act that does not require a strict form. Therefore, when a written application for permission to change a construction waste disposal business is submitted, such application shall be deemed an application for permission to change the construction waste disposal business regardless of the title and submission agency (see Supreme Court Decision

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, on October 25, 201, the Plaintiff submitted a document to the Defendant to the effect that the Plaintiff would transfer the place of business to the prospective relocation site of the instant case after consultation, review, and response. On November 22, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant permission that he would permit the transfer on the condition of prior measures under the relevant laws and measures to prevent accidents as to the Jin and Access Road, etc., and thereafter, requested the Plaintiff to submit a permit for change of construction waste disposal business and supplementary documents. In full view of the language and text of the instant permission notification, the circumstances leading the Defendant to the instant notification, circumstances after the instant permission notification, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the instant permission notification was not a simple consultation reply, but a construction waste disposal business permission disposition for the Plaintiff.

(2) Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(A) Although there was no particular defect at the time of the disposition, and even if there was no separate legal ground for the withdrawal of the disposition after the disposition, the disposition authority which made an administrative act applicable to this case can withdraw it by a separate administrative act which made the original disposition null and void, if there was no need to continue the disposition, or if there was a need for important public interest, it would infringe upon the people's vested vested rights in the case of cancellation or withdrawal of the beneficial administrative disposition. However, even if there is a reason for cancellation, the exercise of the right of cancellation, etc. is necessary for important public interest to justify the infringement of the vested rights. or when there is a need for protection of a third party's interests, it is determined by comparing and comparing the disadvantage suffered by the other party only when it is necessary to protect the interests of the third party, and it is unlawful in itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10251, 10268, Nov. 26, 2004).

(B) Facts of recognition

As a result of the fact-finding conducted by the President of the Korea Construction Resources Association of this Court, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: Gap's evidence Nos. 6, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7.

○ The previous place of business and the previous site to be transferred are both natural green areas, and there are 15-story apartment-type factories and multiple factories in the vicinity of the existing place of business in this case. Meanwhile, the previous site to be transferred in this case is located below the outer upper-rise road, which was used as a driving school in the past, and the garage and funeral hall are located on the left side.

○ During the period of Gyeyang-si in the vicinity of the prospective site for relocation of this case, a residential park with a size of 366,605 square meters is located in the residential village of 36,605 square meters in the residential village of 2-dong 314-3 and 366,605 square, which is part of the residential village park between the prospective site for relocation of this case and the outer circular road of the outer circular, the prospective site for relocation of this case appears to have been lowered, and the altitude is 54.3m.

In the future of the prospective site to be relocated of this case, there are many factories in Anyangcheon Construction, and there are some residential areas, such as the Jinwon apartment and Samho Lake apartment, in the vicinity of the previous site to be relocated of this case, but the above residential area is severed from the relocation prospective site of this case by each salary square, Anyangcheon, etc.

○ As a preventive measure against scattering dust, the Plaintiff installed the indoor sn beamline (H beamline and knife board) for each treatment facility, installed a Belgium container, installed a snife in a waste storage place and a circular aggregate storage place, prepared measures such as installing a soundproof wall and a dust-proof network at the outer boundary of the business site, and prepared measures such as installing a siren depending on the road side due to the preventive measures of Anyangcheon, and installing a screen log to walk the pollutants at three levels, and conducting adequate water and thorough water-saving.

○ The 318 intermediate waste disposal business places across the country have no single-gun, where the entire place of business is indoorized, and the place of business partially indoorizing the disposal facilities is nine parts of the place of business.

(C) Determination

With respect to the instant case, the foregoing recognition, and the following circumstances that can be known from the above recognition, i.e., (i) the specific use area of the pre-determined site of this case is without any restriction on the location of waste disposal facilities under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as natural green area; (ii) the pre-determined site of this case is located at the end of each salary class mountain, and is cut off within the area from the Ho field park, and is not within the visible zone; (iii) the prospective site for the relocation of this case was lowered at the wing square, but it seems not to be directly affected by noise and dust scattering; (iv) the pre-determined site of this case is located in the vicinity of the third scheduled site of this case; (iii) the non-permission of the construction waste disposal business should be based on the ground of the law; and (iii) it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s removal of the construction waste disposal business is considerably below the level required by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and (iv) the Plaintiff’s removal of the total construction waste disposal facilities and its removal measures, etc.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is reasonable, and the disposition of this case violates the limit of cancellation or withdrawal of the beneficial administrative disposition, and thus, it should be revoked.

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Park Jae-woo

Judges Park Gin-uri

A person shall be appointed.