[폐기물초과매립분제거등행정처분무효확인][공2002.8.15.(160),1828]
The meaning of the "treatment capacity" under the Wastes Control Act (i.e., capacity to dispose of by the waste disposal facility itself), and in a case where it is not possible to reclaim to the extent permitted by the permitted landfill facility, whether such reclamation can be performed in proportion to the volume of the permitted landfill without obtaining permission for modification, etc. of the waste disposal facility (negative)
The term "treatment capacity" in the Wastes Control Act does not mean the "permitted capacity in the case of physical facilities," but it is reasonable to view that the " capacity to dispose of by the relevant landfill facility itself" means "the capacity to dispose of by the relevant landfill facility." Thus, if a reclamation cannot be conducted in excess of the permitted capacity of the landfill facility, it is only possible to reclaim according to the capacity permitted by the permitted landfill facility, and it is not possible to reclaim in excess of the permitted capacity of the permitted landfill facility without obtaining permission for the change of the permitted landfill facility.
Articles 12, 26(1) and 45 of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 5865 of Feb. 8, 199); Article 6 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16506 of Aug. 6, 199); Article 6(1) [Attachment 4] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act (amended by Ordinance of Ministry of Environment No. 82 of Aug. 9, 199); Article 6(1) [Attachment 4] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 82 of Aug. 9,
UNC Co., Ltd. (formerly changed: U.S.P.) (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor (Attorney Ha Man-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Busan High Court Decision 2000Nu796 delivered on October 13, 2000
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
1. In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below found that the Plaintiff’s disposal capacity of each of the above dispositions was recognized on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disposal capacity was limited to 210,000 cubic meters of the initial waste disposal business license, but the height and height of the retaining wall, which is a landfill, was below 4.3 meters of the permitted reclamation capacity, calculated on the basis of the permitted landfill area below 210,000 meters of the permitted reclamation capacity; the Plaintiff’s disposal capacity was increased to 4 meters or more from the retaining wall in the original retaining wall without obtaining permission for change of the waste disposal business; and the Plaintiff’s disposal capacity was also limited by the height of the retaining wall, which is the same as that of the retaining wall, and it exceeded the disposal capacity of the above landfill facility; thus, it is reasonable to deem that the above actions by the Plaintiff exceeded the disposal capacity of the waste under Article 86 subparag. 16, 96 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 1986, Feb. 8, 19999).
The term "treatment capacity" in the Wastes Control Act does not mean the "permitted capacity in the case of physical facilities," but it is reasonable to view that the " capacity to dispose of by the relevant landfill facility itself" means "the capacity to dispose of by the relevant landfill facility." Thus, if a reclamation cannot be conducted in excess of the permitted capacity of the landfill facility, it is only possible to reclaim according to the capacity permitted by the permitted landfill facility, and it is not possible to reclaim in excess of the permitted capacity of the permitted landfill facility without obtaining permission for the change of the permitted landfill facility.
In this case, the judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.
2. The court below's decision that the defendant's disposition of this case was not erroneous in the deviation or abuse of discretionary power on its grounds as stated in its holding is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal as to this point is
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)