공장설립승인불가처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following items following the sixth fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary Part] The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case in this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the legality of the disposition of this case, since it prevents the possibility of causing damage to neighboring residents' lives and surrounding environment without presenting any evidence as to which noise, vibration, dust dust, and waste water should be limited to a certain degree, etc. due to the establishment of a ready-mixed factory is allowed.
However, in light of the legal nature of approval for the establishment of a factory in the overconcentration control region as seen above and the legislative purpose and purport of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act, the contents and form of Article 20(1) of the same Act, and Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the defendant, who has received an application for approval for the establishment of a factory, does not necessarily have to determine whether to approve the establishment of a factory by setting certain criteria based on the numerical value, such as the degree of noise, water pollution, traffic congestion, and the degree of risk of accidents, etc., but rather can not approve the establishment of a factory by comprehensively assessing all the circumstances such as the contents, scale and method of the project indicated in the business plan and its impact on the surrounding environment. As such, the disposition of this case, which constitutes discretionary action, is an abuse of discretion.