[2] In a case where the head of the competent Gu made a non-conformity notification on the waste disposal business plan for the domestic waste collection and transportation business submitted by Gap corporation on the grounds that the existing company's human resources and equipment has been sufficiently treated and the new permission is difficult, the case affirming the judgment below that the disposition was unlawful because it exceeded and abused discretion

[2] In a case where the head of the competent Gu notified the waste disposal business plan for the domestic waste collection and transportation business submitted by Gap corporation as inappropriate for the reason that it is difficult to grant separate new permission because it is sufficiently treated with human resources and equipment possessed by the existing company, the case affirming the court below's decision that the disposal of the existing company's exclusive right to collect and transport domestic wastes is unlawful on the ground that it is not reasonable to deem the above disposal as limited to the ground other than the matters listed in the above, on the ground that there is no legitimate reason. However, if the head of the competent Gu grants temporary permission for the domestic waste collection and transportation business to Gap company or other companies, the excessive supply of facilities is expected to cause damage to the existing company, but the order of collection and transportation of existing domestic wastes is likely to be destroyed due to the absence and competition of the existing company's capacity to collect and transport domestic wastes on the ground that the existing company's exclusive right to collect and transport domestic wastes on the ground that the existing company's exclusive right to collect and transport of domestic wastes on the ground that it still deviates from the existing company's power to collect and transport.

1. The former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 10389, Jul. 23, 2010; hereinafter “Act”) imposes an obligation on the head of a local government for efficient and proper disposal of wastes, such as having the head of a local government install and operate waste disposal facilities so that wastes can be properly treated by ascertaining the current status of waste discharge and disposal within his/her jurisdiction, and providing technical and financial support therefor, and coordinating waste disposal business within his/her jurisdiction (Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act). In particular, the former Wastes Control Act provides that the head of a local government shall dispose of wastes on his/her own by having the market, etc. dispose of the wastes for collection, transportation, and disposal, and shall ensure that the person who has obtained permission for waste disposal business under Article 25(3) of the same Act can be deemed to have obtained a minimum extent of permission under Article 25(2) of the Act as prescribed by Ordinance of the relevant local government, and shall not be deemed to have been in accordance with Article 15(2) through (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Act.

Furthermore, the purport of Article 25 of the Act, which provides for the system of notifying the suitability of the business plan prior to the permission for the waste disposal business, is to prevent enormous economic and time loss if the business plan is not admitted after the person who intends to obtain the permission for the waste disposal business filed an application for the installation of facilities, etc. on his own before the permission for the waste disposal business, and at the same time, to examine the business plan in advance and notify the permission-granting agency of the suitability of the requirement for permission in the later stage, and to promptly deal with the permission business after examining the remainder of the requirements for permission at the permission stage. Therefore, even in the process of examining the suitability of the business plan, if there is a serious need for public interest that makes it difficult to grant the permission for the waste disposal business even if it is equipped with facilities, equipment, and technical capability, it is also the way to enhance the trust in the administration. Moreover, each subparagraph of Article 25(2) of the Act, which provides for review of the suitability of the business plan prior to the permission for the waste disposal business, is more specific and clear to establish the scope and criteria for the relevant administrative action plan.

In full view of the above legislative purpose and provisions of the Act, the nature of permission for waste disposal business, the purpose of the system of notification of conformity with the business plan, etc., as well as the public interest such as smooth and appropriate disposal of wastes, when examining whether a waste disposal business plan is appropriate, if it is deemed that there is a risk of undermining the public interest such as the implementation of stable and efficient responsible administration for collection, transportation, and disposal of wastes, even if the examination of the matters listed in each subparagraph of Article 25(2) of the Act is conducted as a result of the examination of the suitability of the waste disposal business plan, it can be deemed that

Therefore, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, deemed that the reasons under each subparagraph of Article 25(2) of the Act are limited to the reasons indicated in its reasoning, and thus, it is inappropriate to immediately determine that the instant disposition is not a legitimate reason for disposal, on the grounds that the Defendant is unlikely to change the quantity of domestic waste generated in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, that is, the Defendant is expected to have almost no change in the quantity of domestic waste generated in Gangseo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, and sufficient treatment is carried out with human resources

2. However, the lower court determined as follows: (a) at the stage of reviewing the suitability of the waste disposal plan by the snow company; (b) even if there are circumstances other than those stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 25(2) of the Act, i.e., the quantity of wastes generated, future waste disposal plans, and existing companies’ disposal capacity, etc., in cases where only one new company is permitted within the competent administrative agency which determines the suitability of the waste disposal business plan, and where a new company files an application for new permission due to the excessive amount of waste generated in the existing company’s facilities compared to the existing company’s quantity within the pertinent local government, the lower court determined that the existing company’s disposal of domestic wastes is unlawful on the grounds that it would be difficult for the Intervenor to carry out stable and efficient responsible administration due to excessive competition between the existing company and the collection and transportation of wastes; and (c) the existing company’s disposal and disposal of domestic wastes may not be deemed unlawful on the ground that the existing company’s disposal and transportation capacity would not substantially hinder the existing company’s new collection and transportation and disposal of domestic wastes beyond the objective purpose of the Plaintiff’s disposal and disposal authority.

Upon examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the scope of discretion in determining the suitability of a waste treatment business plan, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, as long as the lower court’s conclusion that the instant disposition was unlawful, the allegation in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the part resulting from the participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)