건설폐기물처리 사업계획 불가처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff, as the representative director of a corporation B, submitted to the Defendant a construction waste disposal business plan pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act (hereinafter “Construction Waste Promotion Act”) and Article 12(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, setting the scheduled date for construction waste disposal business, construction waste disposal business, facilities, and equipment installation as the planned date for construction waste disposal business, and the scheduled date for business commencement as of July 1, 2017.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction waste disposal business plan” and the construction waste disposal business under the said plan is referred to as the “instant business”). B.
On April 28, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the absence of the instant plan on the following grounds:
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposal”. It is determined that it is difficult to maintain the standards for fine dust (PM-10, -2.5) among environmental standards under Article 12 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy due to scattering dust generated from installation and operation of construction waste disposal interim disposal business, which is generated from the installation and operation of a construction waste disposal business plan (Evidence A4). - At present, the current place of business of the same type of business as the aggregate sorting and crushing business is operating in the vicinity of the prospective site for a project, which is likely to cause inconvenience to residents due to noise and dust scattering in the vehicle operation and process, and if the existing place of business is installed and operated, it is likely that the surrounding environmental impact will be aggravated due to the existing
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission on July 10, 2017, but was dismissed on September 18, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The grounds presented by the Defendant during the instant disposition are objectively as follows.