[2] In a case where the head of a Gun imposes on the executor of an innovation city development project who paid an amount equivalent to the cost of installing waste disposal facilities pursuant to Article 6 of the former Act on the Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance, etc. to Their Environs, including the area of “management Dong” and “other facilities such as Sejong Dong” on the site area which serves as the basis for calculating the cost of installing waste disposal facilities pursuant to the provisions of the Ordinance on the Collection of Costs of Waste Disposal Facilities and the Establishment and Operation of Funds, the case holding that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, inasmuch as the calculation of the site area of “management Dong” and “other facilities such as Sejong Dong Dongdong, etc.” under the provisions of the above Ordinance is merely the specification of the upper statutes

[3] Whether the waste disposal facilities to be installed by a project implementer under the former Act on Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance, etc. to their Environs include resident convenience facilities and the corresponding amount of the cost of installing waste disposal facilities include the cost of installing resident convenience facilities

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. In light of the need to avoid legal confusion and instability that may arise when a certain norm is declared null and void, and the harm caused by the legal gap until a new norm is enacted, in a case where it is unclear whether the provisions of a subordinate statute conflict with the provisions of a superior statute, if it is possible to interpret the meaning of a subordinate statute as consistent with the superior statute by comprehensively examining the contents, legislative intent, and history of the relevant statute, the lower statute does not readily declare invalidation on the ground that the subordinate statute is in violation of the superior statute (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Du48655 Decided June 21, 2018).

In cases where a statute delegates a certain matter to a municipal ordinance, determination of whether the municipal ordinance complies with the limits of delegation shall be made by comprehensively examining the legislative purpose and contents of the relevant provision, the structure of the provision, the relationship with other provisions, etc. of the relevant statute, and whether a new legislation was made beyond the bounds of the terms used in the delegation provision by expanding or reducing the scope thereof beyond the bounds of the terms used in the delegation provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Du56193, Aug. 30, 2018, etc.).

B. Article 6 of the former Act on the Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance, etc. to Their Environs (amended by Act No. 12077, Aug. 13, 2013; hereinafter “Waste Facilities Promotion Act”) provides that a person who intends to develop a multi-family housing complex or housing site in excess of the scale prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter “project implementer”) shall pay the amount equivalent to the installation cost of waste disposal facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree to the head of the Si, etc. having jurisdiction over the relevant area (hereinafter “amount equivalent to the installation cost”) to treat wastes generated from the relevant multi-family housing complex or housing site (hereinafter “amount corresponding to the installation cost”), and the Mayor, etc. shall use the amount corresponding to the installation cost for the installation of waste disposal facilities to dispose of wastes generated from the relevant multi-family housing complex or housing site (paragraph (1)), the method of calculating the amount corresponding to the installation cost, the payment procedure, etc. shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree (paragraph (4)).

Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Waste Facilities Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25165, Feb. 11, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that “waste disposal facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree” under Article 6(1) of the Waste Facilities Promotion Act means incineration facilities and food waste disposal facilities to dispose of wastes generated from the relevant area, and the amount of the relevant installation expenses shall be calculated by dividing the cost for the purchase of the site for facilities and the cost for the installation of facilities into the cost for the purchase of the site for facilities (paragraph (3)), and other necessary matters concerning the calculation of the amount shall be prescribed by Municipal Ordinance of the Special Self-Governing Province, Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the relevant area (paragraph (

According to the delegation of Article 4(4) of the Enforcement Decree, Article 4 of the Ordinance on the Collection of Costs for Installation of Full-Time Waste Disposal Facilities and the Establishment and Operation of Funds (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) provides that the cost for the purchase of a site shall be calculated by multiplying the site by the unit price for the purchase of the site and the site area. In addition, Article 4(2) of the same Ordinance provides that the site area shall be calculated by adding up the areas necessary for the installation of facilities, the installation of convenience facilities for residents and the installation of green belts to the surrounding green areas, and the [attached Table] set the specific standards set forth therein shall include the area of “management Dong”, “other facilities such as Sejongdong, etc.” in the site area for waste disposal facilities, and the area shall be 30 square meters for each waste disposal facility if it is less than 500 square meters per day

C. In light of the language, structure, etc. of the provisions of the Act on Promotion of Waste Facilities, the part concerning the calculation of the site area of “management Dong” and “other facilities, such as Sejong Dong” in the attached Table of the instant Ordinance is merely a specification of the upper statutes, and it cannot be deemed null and void beyond the bounds of delegation by the upper statutes. The reasons are as follows.

(1) Article 4(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Waste Facilities Promotion Act provides that the cost of installing a facility shall be calculated per ton unit price on the basis of 200t daily disposal capacity in the case of incineration facilities and 30t disposal capacity in the case of food waste disposal facilities, while there is no provision regarding the calculation of the site area of waste disposal facilities.

As such, the relevant statutes do not have any provision regarding the standards for calculating expenses incurred in installing waste disposal facilities, and there is no provision regarding the site area of waste disposal facilities. As such, local governments should be deemed to have given discretion to determine the scale of “management Dong” and “other facilities, such as Sejong Dong” necessary therefor by forecasting various factors, such as the scale, operation method, and demand for management of waste disposal facilities in the future. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, such as that the criteria for calculating the site area of waste disposal facilities as prescribed by municipal ordinances are considerably unreasonable, the content of municipal ordinances cannot be deemed invalid.

(2) According to the Revised Statement of Guidelines for the Installation and Operation of Domestic Waste Incineration Facilities published by the Ministry of Environment around October 2012, the term “management Dong” means ① offices, public relations offices, cafeterias, data rooms, conference rooms, laboratories, laboratories, electricity rooms, storages, resident consultative offices, etc. ② “other facilities, such as strings, measurement dongs, maintenance dongs, chimneys, parking lots, green spaces, resting spaces, and comprehensive cleaning facilities. The term “management Dong” and “other facilities, such as strings, etc.,” are facilities necessary for the smooth management and operation of waste disposal facilities, but are facilities that contribute to achieving the legislative purpose of the Promotion of Waste Facilities Act with the aim of contributing to environmental conservation and improvement in the quality of the people’s lives.

(3) The Ministry of Environment presents an opinion that the site area of the “management dong” and “other facilities such as Sejongdong, etc.”, which are ancillary facilities, cannot be proportional to the capacity of waste disposal facilities, and that it is necessary to secure a minimum space for ancillary facilities for the maintenance and management of facilities in any small scale.

(4) The minimum site area of “management Dong” and “other facilities, such as the Sejongdong, etc.” as prescribed by the instant Municipal Ordinance is 330 square meters (100 square meters) and it is difficult to view it as an unreasonable and excessive area in light of the above purpose and necessity, etc. In cases of small-scale waste disposal facilities, even if the site area of “management Dong” and “other facilities, such as the Sejongdong, etc., can exceed the site area of waste disposal facilities themselves

(5) Since the Ordinance of this case sets the corresponding calculation standard for the installation cost in consideration of the installation cost of the facilities to be installed in the future, the circumstances that some local governments already installed and operated fall short of the standards prescribed by the Ordinance of this case cannot serve as the grounds for invalidity of the standards prescribed by the Ordinance of this case.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that it was unlawful for the Defendant to calculate the site purchase cost by including 330 square meters of the site area of “management Dong” and “other facilities such as Sejongdong, etc.” in the attached Table of the instant Ordinance in the site for waste disposal facilities on behalf of the project implementer, as there is a risk that the market owner, etc. may be excessively aggravated than the actual cost incurred in purchasing the site for waste disposal facilities on behalf of the project implementer.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the corresponding amount of waste disposal facilities under the Waste Facility Promotion Act, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. As to the allegation that adding the area necessary for the installation of resident convenience facilities is illegal

(1) According to Article 22 of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 4(3) of the Framework Act on Administrative Regulations, where a local government establishes a municipal ordinance with respect to the restriction on the rights of residents, the imposition of obligations on residents, or penal provisions, the contents thereof must be delegated by law. Therefore, the municipal ordinance with respect to the restriction on the rights of residents or the imposition of obligations on residents without delegation by law is invalid (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du19270, Nov. 22, 2012).

In light of the language, structure, etc. of the Waste Facilities Promotion Act and the Enforcement Decree, convenience facilities for residents are not included in the waste disposal facilities to be installed by a project implementer, and the cost of installing facilities does not include the cost of installing facilities for convenience for residents (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du35229, Nov. 29, 2018).

Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Ordinance of this case stipulates that the site area shall be calculated by adding up the areas necessary for the installation of facilities, the installation of facilities for the convenience of residents, and the installation of a green belt in the surrounding area, and the attached Table prescribing the detailed standards shall include the area equivalent to 10% of the total site area of the facilities (waste disposal facilities, the management building, the Sejong-dong, etc.) in the total site area, thereby including the installation cost in the corresponding amount of the installation

Therefore, the part of the cost of installation to be calculated by including the area necessary for the "establishment of convenience and convenience facilities for residents" in Article 4 subparagraph 2 and [Attachment Table] of the Ordinance of this case is nothing more than that of a new legislation beyond the limit of delegation by expanding it beyond the scope of possible interpretation of the Waste Facilities Promotion Act. Therefore, it is invalid.

(2) Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant disposition was lawful, which included the cost of installing convenience facilities for residents on its own account, on the grounds that it is unreasonable to allow the mayor, etc. to install convenience facilities for residents on its own account. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the amount of the cost of installing waste disposal

B. As to the allegation that the calculation of the site purchase price, the area of incineration facilities site, and the unit cost of facilities installation is unlawful

(1) The gist of this part of the grounds of appeal is that Article 4 and [Attachment Table] of the Ordinance of this case stipulate the unit price for the purchase of a site at the cost of the relevant apartment complex or housing site uniformly as the cost of the development of the relevant apartment complex or housing site. The purport is that the Defendant should calculate the amount corresponding to the cost of the installation on the basis of the unit price for the purchase of existing waste disposal facilities, area

(2) Article 4 Subparag. 1 of the instant Ordinance stipulates that the site purchase price shall be calculated on the basis of the “development cost per square meter” of the relevant multi-family housing complex or housing site that intends to be developed. This is limited to cases where waste disposal facilities are determined within the relevant project district or their site is not determined, and where the land outside the relevant project district becomes final and conclusive as the site for facilities, the foregoing municipal ordinances shall not apply to the extent of the calculation of the installation cost. Such interpretation does not exceed the bounds of delegation of superior statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du8431, Dec. 15, 2016).

(3) On the other hand, the court determined whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of social justice and equity by taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the result of examination of evidence (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act), and the judgment is within the discretionary authority of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du925, Mar. 24, 2016).

The lower court determined that it was not unlawful for the Defendant to calculate the unit price of site purchase, site area, etc. in accordance with the Ordinance of this case, even if the Defendant was scheduled to utilize existing waste disposal facilities outside the project district, the land outside the project district is not determined as a site for facilities.

Examining the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, in so determining that the land outside the relevant project district was not determined as a facility site. Therefore, this part of the grounds of appeal on the premise that the land outside the relevant project district was determined as a facility site

C. As to the assertion that the application of the food waste disposal facility size index is unlawful

The lower court determined that Article 6(3) of the Ordinance of this case does not stipulate the standard more aggravated than the Enforcement Decree for the application of the scale index based on food waste disposal facilities of 30t daily disposal capacity, but rather specify the provisions of the Enforcement Decree, and that the Defendant’s application of the scale index 1.2 according to the Ordinance of this case is not unlawful.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the amount of expenses incurred in installing waste disposal facilities under the Waste Facility Promotion Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)