Since collection of earth and rocks in forests directly affect the maintenance of the national land and nature and the preservation of the environment, even if such collection of earth and rocks constitutes not only the restricted area for collection of earth and rocks as prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes, but also falls under the restricted area for collection of earth and rocks, the permission-granting agency may refuse such permission if it is deemed necessary for important public interest, such as the maintenance of the national land and nature, and the preservation of the environment, considering the status, location, surrounding circumstances, etc. of the land subject to the application for permission for collection of earth and rocks (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu5489, Aug. 12, 1994; 2004Du13547, Apr. 28, 2005). Determination of whether serious public interest needs to be made by comprehensively taking into account the degree of damage to forests and natural landscape anticipated by collection of earth and rocks, necessity for protection of surrounding cultural heritage or tourism resources, possibility of easily using agricultural water or water due to collection of earth and rocks, degree and vibration suffering.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the first instance court acknowledged the following circumstances, namely, ① the area of the instant application is adjacent to the collective quarrying site where more than 10 quarrying companies have been engaged in quarrying activities, and the area of the area is not excessive compared to the area of the existing quarrying site (509,587m2) currently in operation on May 2005. ② According to the environmental review conducted by the defendant, the court below proposed that the existing quarrying area should be established outside the buffer zone to reflect the opinions of the residents only within the buffer zone in order to minimize environmental damage and damage to landscape, and it appears that the Plaintiff’s application for quarrying is located within the buffer zone. ③ According to the Plaintiff’s business plan, the court below determined that the existing quarrying area was no more than 10 years since 10 years ago, and that the existing quarrying area was no more than 10 years since 10 years ago, and that the existing quarrying area was no more than 10 years since 10 years ago.

However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

According to the evidence rejected by the court below, the area surrounding the national highways No. 43 of this case is an area in which stone collection was conducted since the 1970s, but it cannot be said that there is no value to protect the forest or to protect natural landscape. In the case of collecting large rocks such as granite cancer, it is difficult to restore the area to the original state easily. In the case of collecting large rocks such as granite, it is difficult to use the small river located between gran river and gradar river, including the site of this case, and passing the gradar complex, into two rivers. This two rivers flow from the territorial waters to the Han River and the Han River again, through the Han River and the gradar River. It is sufficient to view that there is a large quantity of wastewater containing large quantities of water generated from stone collection and publication as a small river, and that there is a high level of pollution level above the standard level of water pollution generated by the plaintiff's application for the long-term gradar noise in the surrounding river, which is likely to spread and decline.

In addition, as recognized by the first instance court and the lower court, the Defendant, from around December 1998 to January 2007 (the lower court’s judgment’s around January 2006, is clear that it is a clerical error in the area surrounding the application site) extended the existing permission area or extended the permission period for collection of earth and rocks over ten times. On May 2005, the area of the existing quarries where work is in progress in the vicinity of the application site of this case is 509,587 square meters, and the application area of this case is 45,28 square meters. Meanwhile, according to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant did not have any risk of damage to the surrounding area of this case for ten years since 198, since it was difficult for the Defendant to review the existing quarries to expand the permission area within the boundary of the existing quarry area to prevent the existing quarriesation of stone collection in order to prevent the existing quarriesation of earth and rocks.

또 앞서 본 증거들에 의하면, 환경부 한강유역환경청은 2003. 10. 10.경 피고에게 ‘ △△봉 일대 채석단지 일원에 대하여 능선부와 계곡 등을 녹지축으로 설정하고 완충구역(산림원형보존지역) 및 생태이동로 등을 설정하도록 하고, 포천시 주관하에 복구계획수립 및 채석단지 일대 지역에 대한 보존지역과 개발가능지역을 관계전문가 등으로부터 검증을 받아 추진될 수 있도록 환경영향평가 협의 등 추진’을 내용으로 하는 공문을 시달하여, 피고는 2004. 11. 24.부터 △△봉 일대 채석단지에 대하여 환경성 검토용역을 실시한 사실, 위 용역 결과인 ‘ △△봉일대( ○○·○○) 채석장 환경성검토서’에서 ‘본 채석장지구의 10년 이내 채석할 범위는 두 가지 대안으로 검토하였으며, 대안1의 경우에는 법면을 고려한 원형보전으로 설정하였고, 대안2는 주민의 의견이 반드시 반영되어야 개발할 수 있는 안으로 설정하였으며, 채석범위 외곽으로 약 1km를 완충구역(산림원형보전지역)으로 설정하여 완충구역 안에서만 개발이 이루어지도록 하였다’고 검토하였고, 이 사건 신청지는 완충구역 내에 포함되는 사실, 원고는 2005. 8.경 이 사건 신청지 인근의 ○○리에 거주하는 82세대 중 55세대가 이 사건 채석 허가에 동의하였다는 내용의 동의서를 제출한 사실, 한편 2007. 5. 29.자 세대명부에 의하면, □□리에 65세대, ○○리에 101세대, 합계 166세대가 거주하고, 원고 제출의 동의서에 서명 날인한 주민 중 10명은 2005. 8. 21.자로 ‘채석장 관련한 정확한 이야기는 듣지 못하였고 … 분명히 채석장 확대에 관하여 반대한다는 본인의 소신을 밝힙니다’는 취지의 사유서를 작성한 사실, 위 ‘환경성검토서’에 의하면 거사리 및 가양리 마을주민의 80%가 석산 확장에 반대한다고 보고되었고, 2005. 8. 4.자 ○○리 마을회관에서 개최된 마을총회에 108가구(세대주) 중 61가구(세대원) 참가하여 채석장 확장허가 관련 찬반투표 결과 찬성 27, 반대 32, 무효표 2로 ○○쪽 채석장 확장은 반대하는 것으로 마을회의를 종결한 사실, 영중면에서 2007. 4. 16.경 ‘채석허가 신청에 따른 주민의견’을 조회하여 포천시에 보낸 문서에 의하면, □□리와 ○○리 주민들은 기존 석산으로 인한 생활의 불편함 등을 호소하며 채석허가에 반대한다는 내용인 사실, 원심에서 □□리 1반 47명, □□리 2반 24명, ○○리 46명의 주민들이 ‘ △△봉 채석장 신규 및 확장허가 반대’ 취지의 탄원서를 제출한 사실을 알 수 있는바, 위 환경성검토서의 대안2 요건을 갖춘 경우에는 언제나 채석허가신청을 거부할 중대한 공익상 필요가 부정된다고 볼 수 없을 뿐만 아니라 사정이 위와 같다면 주민의 의견이 반영되었다고 볼 수도 없다고 할 것이므로, 이 사건 신청지가 완충구역 내에 위치하고 있다거나 위 동의서를 제출하였다는 사유를 들어 이 사건 채석허가를 불허할 만한 중대한 공익상 필요가 없다고 단정할 수 없다.

Therefore, the court below's maintenance of the first instance court's decision that it is difficult to consider that there is a serious public interest to deny the quarrying permission of this case for reasons as stated in its holding is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for restrictions on quarrying permission and failing to exhaust all deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)