1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, on October 8, 2010, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with the land designated as the site of the Cream Center in Gyeyang-si District (hereinafter referred to as “instant incineration site”) for the installation of waste disposal facilities, 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 referred to as the “former Waste Disposal Facilities Promotion Act”), Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act on the Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance, etc. to their Environs-si Areas (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25165, Feb. 11, 2014); Article 3 of the Ordinance on the Promotion of Installation, Operation, and Assistance, etc. to their Environs-si Waste Disposal Facilities (hereinafter referred to as “instant waste disposal facilities site”); and separately provided the Plaintiff with the cost of installing the incineration facilities as the site of each incineration facilities (hereinafter referred to as “food disposal facilities site”).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence admitted by the lower court, it is clear that the instant disposition was not based on the premise that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the burden of installing waste disposal facilities, separate from free supply of the site for waste disposal facilities. Furthermore, according to the provisions of each of the above statutes, an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the burden of installing waste disposal facilities

Nevertheless, the lower court concluded that the instant disposition was unlawful solely on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have agreed to provide the Defendant with the site for the instant incineration facilities and the site for food disposal facilities without compensation in lieu of the cost for the purchase of the site and that the Plaintiff agreed to bear the costs of each of the above facilities separately. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the imposition of waste disposal facilities under the former Waste Facilities Promotion Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s ground of

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without further examining the remainder of the grounds of appeal, 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 Byung-hee

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jae-han