2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. On August 12, 2005, according to the Act on the Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance, etc. to their Environs, the Defendant decided and announced the location of the instant waste disposal facilities, the Gangwon-gun and 48 parcels, including Gangwon-do, as the location of the instant waste disposal facilities, and on September 23, 2005, the Governor of Gangwon-do announced the approval of the plan for installation of waste disposal facilities on September 23, 2005.

B. On April 13, 2007, the Defendant constituted a Resident Support Council as the representative of neighboring residents, etc. to support the surrounding areas affected environmentally due to the installation and operation of the instant waste disposal facilities, and created KRW 4 billion of the Resident Support Fund. The Resident Support Council shall be established on December 13, 2007.

The meeting held a meeting and notified the defendant of KRW 2 billion among the resident support fund as the business fund of the resident support council, and the remaining KRW 2 billion as the CMyeon Development Fund, after the resolution was passed to support the CMyeon Council, and the defendant was notified of the defendant according to the results of deliberation by the Fund Operation Deliberation Council on December 31, 2007.

On January 3, 2008, 2 billion won was paid to the Resident Support Consultative Body, and 2 billion won was paid to the CMyeon-young on January 3, 2008.

C. However, from November 2012, 922 residents who reside in the Dongwon-gun C, were recommended by 13 representatives of each Ri in order to promote the re-distribution of the Resident Support Fund, claiming that the Resident Support Fund should be re-divided and managed for each Ri, since the Resident Support Fund that was paid to the Dongwon-gun, which was fairly executed from around 300 to 300,000, and the said representatives established a Committee on April 15, 2014.

D. On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff, the chairperson of the D Committee, distributed the Resident Support Fund managed by the CMyeon Council to 13 Ris in the proportion of household units, and prepared a claim for residents' voting to ask for the approval of the residents for each Ri or to ask for the approval of the residents for the approval of each Ri (hereinafter referred to as "instant proposal for residents' voting"). However, on November 3, 2014, the Defendant rejected it on the ground that the residents' voting of the instant proposal for residents was impossible on November 3, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 A without dispute, Gap evidence 3 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The proposal of this case is about the establishment of various funds, and is subject to the residents' voting because it falls under the "major decisions of local governments that give excessive burden to residents or have a significant impact on residents" under Article 7 (1) of the Residents' Voting Act. And the issuance of a certificate by the head of local government on the application for issuance of a certificate by the representative of petitioners for residents' voting is a binding act, and the disposition of this case which refused

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In light of the form of Article 10(1) and (2) of the Residents' Voting Act, the issuance of a certificate by the head of a local government on the application for issuance of a certificate by the representative of petitioners for Residents' Voting is a binding act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du10556, Dec. 13, 2007). Therefore, the matters proposed by the Plaintiff are subject to the Residents' Voting, and if the Plaintiff files an application for issuance of a certificate by the representative of petitioners for Residents' Voting by meeting the requirements under Article 10(1) of the Residents' Voting Act, the Defendant shall issue it.

2) Article 7(1) of the Residents' Voting Act provides that "a major decision made by a local government which imposes an excessive burden on residents or has a significant impact on residents, which is prescribed by municipal ordinance of the local government, may be put to the Residents' Voting." Article 4 of the Bupyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Residents' Voting provides that "the establishment of various funds, issuance of municipal bonds, matters concerning the implementation of public-private partnership projects (No. 4)," and "major decision-making items (No. 6) that seriously affect residents' welfare, etc." shall be subject to the Residents' Voting.

B) In addition, the Act on the Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities, Assistance, etc. to Their Environs (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the Ordinance on the Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities, Assistance, etc. to their Environs (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance") provide for the following matters. (1) The agency installing waste disposal facilities shall determine and publicly notify the neighboring area (hereinafter referred to as the " neighboring area") that is affected environmentally due to the installation and operation of waste disposal facilities within the period prescribed by Presidential Decree from the date of the public announcement of the plan for installation of waste disposal facilities under Article 11-3. The affected area shall be divided into the area (right of direct influence) where it is deemed necessary to move local residents because it is anticipated to have a direct environmental impact on human and animal activities, agriculture, livestock products, forestry products, or fishery products, and the area (indirect rights) other than the area of direct influence expected to have an environmental impact on the residents, and the residents support fund and the Fund shall be established for the improvement of the welfare of the affected adjacent area as its income and revenue from the Fund. (2)

C) Such relevant provisions, which are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 3, and the overall purport of pleadings, are as follows: ① there is a concern for considerable environmental impacts on the living activities of residents in the neighboring area if the waste disposal facilities of this case are composed of a considerable scale; ② multiple civil and administrative litigations have been raised and criminal complaints have been filed and criminal complaints have been filed with regard to the establishment of the consultative body on the location of residents during the above waste disposal facilities; ② it is reasonable to determine that the residents of Pyeongtaek-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-based residents' welfare support and waste the funds received as above for purposes other than the promotion of residents' welfare or environmental conservation; ④

C) On this issue, the defendant asserts that since the payment of the Resident Support Fund has already been completed and the decision that the defendant's disposition is not unlawful, the defendant does not have any matter to be determined in the future, and that he does not have the right to decide the distribution

However, the support plan of the Resident Support Fund may be modified ex post facto by a local government, and this is also the same even if the above judgment becomes final and conclusive. In addition, the support by the Resident Support Fund may be provided by residents or households in the affected neighboring areas (Article 22(3) of the Act), the head of the Gun (the agency installing waste disposal facilities) shall operate and manage the Resident Support Fund (Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and Article 9(2) of the Ordinance), and the Defendant may choose to distribute and manage the Resident Support Fund separately, and it may be deemed one of the methods of operating and managing the Fund.

Therefore, all of the defendant's arguments are without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Domincs

Judge Lee Jin-han

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.