2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on February 12, 2008 against the plaintiff is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

(a) Submission, etc. of the Plaintiff’s business plan and notification, etc. of suitability to the head of Daegu Regional Environmental Office;

(1) On May 3, 2005, the Plaintiff was established to run an environmental business and any other business incidental thereto. Around that time, the Plaintiff submitted a business plan on the installation and operation of the waste disposal facilities (hereinafter “the first business plan”) to the head of the Daegu Regional Environmental Office (hereinafter “the first business plan”) with the content of incineration and treatment of the above infectious waste (hereinafter “the instant waste disposal facilities”) from the site for factory site (number 1 omitted) 20,221 square meters (hereinafter “the first business plan site”) discharged from all levels of medical institutions nationwide, as the waste was partially amended by Act No. 8213 on January 3, 2007, and its name was changed to the “medical waste”; hereinafter “the previous name of “ploitable waste”).

(2) On August 10, 2005, the head of Daegu Regional Environment Office held a technical review meeting with respect to the initial project plan submitted by the Plaintiff. After that, the head of Daegu Regional Environment Office submitted materials supplementing some deficiencies pointed out by the Plaintiff at the technical review meeting, and notified the Plaintiff of the appropriateness of the initial project plan on the 26th of the same month.

(3) On February 22, 2006, the Plaintiff submitted to the head of the Daegu Regional Environment Office a revised plan for the treatment of infectious waste (hereinafter “amended plan”) to change the original scheduled project site into the instant scheduled project site (number 2-6 omitted).

(4) On March 13, 2006, the head of the Daegu regional environment office requested the head of the Si/Gun/Gu to review whether the change plan for the submission of the plaintiff to the defendant and the Gyeongbuk Do Governor is in conflict with other laws. On March 13, 2006, the defendant requested on March 13, 2006 to examine whether the change plan for the submission of the plaintiff to the head of the Daegu regional environment office was in conflict with the other laws. Since the waste disposal facilities intended to be installed by the plaintiff have a daily treatment capacity of 24t, there is no conflict with the relevant laws except for those that should be subject to the determination of the urban management planning facilities for the facility with a daily treatment capacity of 10t and thus fall under the facility subject to the determination of the urban management planning facilities for the facility. However, the surrounding area of the project site of this case is located in the Mapodo complex and Masan National Park, and there is a need for the submission of the plaintiff's opinion on the change plan for the installation of the adjacent livestock environment.

(5) On the other hand, on March 22, 2006, the Administrator of the Daegu Regional Environment Office notified the Plaintiff of the suitability for the alteration plan, and accordingly, on March 24, 2006, the Gyeongbuk-do Governor permitted the installation of air discharge facilities.

(b) Submission of a proposal for determination of urban management planning facilities;

(1) On October 2, 2006, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a proposal for formulating an urban management planning facility (waste disposal facility) decision regarding the instant waste disposal facility (hereinafter “instant proposal”) pursuant to Article 26(1) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

(2) On October 17, 2006, the Defendant first sought opinions on the draft determination of urban management planning facilities (waste disposal facilities) based on the instant proposal from each relevant department belonging to the Defendant (City/Do department, comprehensive civil petition processing department, environmental protection department, disaster safety management department) and the head of Yannam-do. On October 17, 2006, the head of Yannam-do, “The river adjacent to the site where the project is installed is the upper region of the Daean Dam, which is the water source protection area of the Geum River, and is approximately 1.5 km away in straight line from the kingan National Park, which is the upper region of the Yansan National Park, as the water source protection area of the river. The public opinion of the local residents is considerably negative due to dust and environment-friendly farming problems caused by incineration, destruction of the natural environment of the clean area, etc. The establishment of accurate preventive measures against the volume of waste inflow in the future, the prevention measures against damage to farmers, the distribution and sale of agricultural products, and response measures against the residents.”

(3) In addition, from October 27, 2006 to November 14, 2006, the Defendant made a public inspection and announcement of the draft decision on urban management planning facilities (waste disposal facilities) based on the instant proposal for the purpose of hearing the opinions of the residents pursuant to Article 28 of the National Land Planning Act and Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and 3,108 local residents, such as breast water, etc., are likely to cause soil and water pollution if they install infectious waste disposal facilities in the instant project site, and production and sale of Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Dot and Bio Y, a local specialty, are difficult. Since the instant planned project site is an eco-friendly agriculture area, they oppose the instant proposal to the decision on waste disposal facilities (waste disposal facilities) based on the instant proposal.

(4) On November 15, 2006, in order to hear the opinion of the resident council under the National Land Planning Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant sent to the City Council a draft of the determination of the urban management planning facilities (waste disposal facilities) based on the instant proposal. On November 15, 2006, the first industrial construction committee of the resident city was a clean area on the 23th of the same month, and the resident 3,108 opposed to the determination of the urban management plan facilities (waste disposal facilities) based on the instant proposal. If infectious waste disposal facilities are installed in the instant planned project area, the Defendant presented an opinion against the determination of the urban management plan facilities (waste disposal facilities) based on the instant proposal on the grounds that it may cause soil and water pollution in the surrounding areas. On the 24th of that month, the resident council held a plenary session and decided to oppose the instant proposal to the determination of the urban management plan facilities (waste disposal facilities) based on the first

(5) Finally, on December 2006, the defendant requested the Permanent Resident Planning Committee to provide advice on the decision of urban management planning facilities (waste disposal facilities) based on the instant proposal in accordance with Article 26(1) of the National Land Planning Act, Article 20(2) of the Enforcement Decree thereof, and Article 6 of the Ordinance of the Permanent Resident Planning. On the 14th of the same month, the Si Urban Planning Committee presented its opinion that it is inappropriate for the Si Urban Planning Committee to install the communicable waste disposal facilities (waste disposal facilities) based on the instant proposal on the ground that the instant project site is a clean area and its surrounding area is a clean area, and it is inappropriate for the Si Urban Planning Committee to install the Si Urban Planning Committee to install the communicable waste disposal facilities, which is likely to occur due to neglect of waste due to the fact that the instant site is adjacent to the adjacent shock level and the installation of the communicable waste disposal facilities is likely to occur due to natural combustion and incineration in the process of waste storage.

C. The defendant's notification on December 18, 2006 and the filing of administrative litigation against it

(1) On December 18, 2006, the Defendant made a notification to the Plaintiff on December 18, 2006 that “The proposal for the decision on waste disposal facilities (waste disposal facilities) based on the instant proposal was rejected by the Resident Residential City Planning Committee” (hereinafter “Notification on December 18, 2006”) as a result of consulting with the Residential City Planning Committee on the drafting of the instant proposal concerning the Plaintiff’s submission.

(2) On December 18, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Defendant seeking revocation of the above rejection disposition against the ordinary north-do Governor. On April 5, 2007, the Gyeongbuk-do Governor dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the above notification cannot be deemed to have been illegal or abused as a disposition.

(3) Meanwhile, on February 9, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an administrative suit with the Daegu District Court claiming that the notification on December 18, 2006 was an illegal disposition and sought its revocation. On November 7, 2007, the above notification was not presented as a ground and reason, and the court rendered a decision to revoke it (Seoul District Court 2007Guhap421) on the ground that it was an unlawful disposition due to procedural defect, and the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2007Nu1850) rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the ground that the Defendant implicitly withdrawn the notification on December 18, 2006, which was the previous disposition, and the above decision became final and conclusive as is.

D. The instant disposition dated February 12, 2008

On February 12, 2008, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”) that it would return the Plaintiff’s proposal to formulate an urban management planning facility (waste disposal facility) based on the Plaintiff’s instant proposal.

(1) The instant planned project site is a clean area that is set up as a tourism development zone that connects the Marisan National Park located in the Marisanbuk-do and the Yeonam-do Natural Park in the 2020 basic urban planning at the time of residents living in 2020, and waste disposal facilities are not installed in conformity with the basic urban planning (the grounds for

(2) The Urban Planning Committee presented a dissenting opinion as to the construction of waste disposal facilities due to the occurrence of disputes between the residents, the occurrence of fire due to incineration, the occurrence of civil petitions due to waste, etc. (the reasons for the second disposition).

(3) Residential cities sell special products, such as Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju, rice, and ion, to the public throughout the country. In particular, in the south of the Republic of Korea, most residents grow and sell Jeju Jeju Jeju, Jeju, and overwater, thereby raising school expenses and making a living for their children. When waste disposal facilities are installed, the image of the area would be damaged, thereby causing enormous impediment to the lives of the residents (the ground for disposition 3).

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3 through 12, Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 24, Eul evidence 25-22, Eul evidence 1-1 through 4, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence 8-4 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings,

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition should be revoked because it is unlawful by deviating from and abusing discretionary power for the following reasons.

(1) (As to the ground for Disposition 1), the basic urban planning in 2020, which was approved as of July 31, 2008 after the instant disposition, is not legally binding against the Defendant, an administrative agency, and thus, cannot serve as a basis for determining the illegality of the instant disposition. Even according to the basic urban planning for household affairs, the instant waste disposal facilities were designed environmentally friendly with surrounding scenery and natural environment without conflict with the National Land Planning Act and the Building Act, and all processes related to waste disposal were regularly supervised through high-tech technology, and thus, are not inconsistent with the basic urban planning. Thus, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

(2) (Grounds for Disposition Nos. 2 and 3) The resident residential planning committee presented a dissenting opinion, not necessarily bound by the Defendant’s opinion. On the other hand, the Plaintiff was judged by the relevant administrative agencies and environmental pollution-related specialized agencies that the technical and environmental feasibility of facilities, such as the adequacy of air pollution prevention plan and the incineration facility operation system, etc. with respect to the waste disposal facilities intended to be installed in the project site of this case. Thus, even if the above waste disposal facilities are installed, there is no concern about environmental pollution, etc. in the vicinity of the project site of this case, and there is no concern about environmental pollution and fire occurrence, civil petition due to neglect of incineration, and dispute with the Cheongdo, which is the neighboring area,

(3) In formulating and determining an urban management plan, in a case where there is no benefit balancing, or where there is an omission of matters to be included in the subject of consideration of benefit balancing, or where there is a lack of legitimacy and objectivity despite balancing, the determination of the urban management plan shall be deemed an unlawful disposition that deviates from and abused discretion. However, the installation of the instant waste disposal facility, which led to the infringement of the neighboring residents’ private interest or public interest that may be damaged by the State or society, is at a level of disregarding, while the Plaintiff who invested a large amount of expenses for a long period of time, was the Defendant’s disposition, and thus, the Defendant abused and abused discretionary power.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Facts of recognition

(1) Main contents of the project plan and environmental survey document;

The main contents of the business plan and the environmental survey document attached to the project proposal of this case are as follows, upon receiving proper notification from the head of Daegu Regional Office on the waste disposal facilities of this case.

The average daily treatment volume of wastes contained in the main sentence [business plan] : 215 cubic meters (waste, damaged waste, debrising 210 cubic meters, 50 cubic meters per day, and 24t/day, and continuous air pollution prevention facilities: 24/100 of the average volume of waste treatment facilities at 50 cubic meters, which are located within the 3rd-day area of the project site or 4th-day area adjacent to the 5th-day area of the project, and which can be located within the 5th-day area of the project. The 5th-day area of the project, which is located within the 5th-day area of the project, is likely to be located within the 5th-day area of the project. The 3rd-day area of the project, which is located within the 5th-day area of the project, shall be the area of the 5th-day area of the project, which is located within the 5th-day area of the project. The 5th area of the project site is likely to be located.

(2) The natural and living environment surrounding the project site of this case

(A) The instant planned project site is located at a place where the right-hand turn to 1 km is entered according to the schedule of the resident seat at the place of residence along the national road No. 25 line. The instant planned project site is located at a place where the right-hand turn to the left according to the schedule of the resident seat, along with the national road No. 25 line connected between the Gu and the Gu road, and is a place where traffic is convenient.

(B) The land scheduled for the instant project is divided into a specific use area. The land category is divided into a specific use area; the land category is miscellaneous; the gradient is 240 to 250 meters; the gradient is 0 to 10 degrees and there is no need for civil engineering works, such as additional large-scale gender and cutting. Meanwhile, the part of the land planned for the instant project is located at a point 10 meters in the width of the instant project, and the area of the land is located in the area of the land (number 7 omitted) where the non-party 1 corporation had been operating with the permission for development activities from the defendant (However, with regard to the application for the permission for the conversion of the forest of non-party 1 corporation related to the forest above, the defendant filed the said application for the said non-permission on the grounds that it is anticipated to inflict damage on residents, such as noise, vibration, dust, dust, and dust, etc., at the first instance trial, the non-party 1 corporation lost the non-party 1 corporation at the appellate court (Seoul High Court).

(C) On the other hand, at a place less than 350 meters away from the land scheduled for the instant project, the house in which the resident 350 meters away from the north east of the instant project is located, the stone collection station of the tideland in Korea is located at a place less than 130 meters south, the house in which 2 households reside at a place less than 95 meters south west, the house and breeding facilities in which 2 households reside at a place less than 230 meters north west, the house in which 7 households reside at a place less than 640 meters north west and the village in which 38 households reside on the south west.

(D) Examining the current status of each item within one kilometer around the instant land scheduled for the instant project, approximately 8 households engaged in the livestock industry by raising Chinese rain, fry, and deer, etc., and approximately 13 households grow sporads, spods, and spods, and spods, and spods, and approximately 11 households grow spods, spods, spods, spods, and spods, etc., which are special crops.

(E) In the case of a permanent resident in the area where the instant project site is located, the sales of eco-friendly agricultural products produced in the area is promoting eco-friendly advanced ecological city, regional living-oriented city, and the sales of eco-friendly agricultural products, emphasizing that it is an environmentally friendly clean area and pollution-free area, among the total of 420 households, is living in cultivating 287 hydrogen, fruit trees, and special crops.

(3) The process of treating infectious wastes according to the Plaintiff’s business plan

According to the Plaintiff’s business plan, the organization logistics and solars shall be collected and transported by a medical institution scattered across the country to store in freezing storage, the infectious wastes shall be incinerated after being stored in the storage, and the remainder after being incinerated through pollution prevention facilities, such as SNCR, anti-fluoring towers, etc. In the course of incineration, a separate entrusted disposal company shall dispose of residual gas remaining after being incinerated. On the other hand, the exhaust gas management caused by incineration can control pollutants below the regulatory standard by attaching the Ministry of Environment remote control system (Tms) to chimneys to the Control Center in real-time by transmitting pollutants to the Control Center for each item of pollutants. Moreover, according to the policies of the Ministry of Environment, the RFID system, which is a system that grasps real-time emission, transportation, and disposal of infectious wastes with an electronic tag attached to the exclusive container for infectious wastes, is to be controlled at an appropriate level.

(4) Former research findings on the incineration of infectious wastes and environmental issues

(A) The term communicable wastes means the wastes prescribed by Presidential Decree, among the wastes discharged from public health and medical institutions, veterinary clinics, testing and inspection institutions, etc., which are likely to cause harm to human body by infection, etc. and the wastes deemed to require special management for public health and environmental protection, such as parts of human bodies, such as parts of human bodies, and carcasses of laboratory animals (see Article 2 Subparag. 5 of the Wastes Control Act). In general, in the event of the incineration of infectious wastes, air pollutants such as dysium, dust, dust, smoke, sulfur oxide, hydrogen, hydrogen, hydrogen, hydrogen, sulfur oxides, sulfur oxides, etc. are generated, and such pollutants are known to have a significant impact on human bodies, animals, and plants, the maximum permissible emission level is strictly controlled by the Clean Air Conservation Act, etc.

(B) In particular, multiple houses have a significant impact on the human body. According to the “environmental impact on the surrounding areas due to the operation of incineration facilities (2003)” prepared by the Korean Waste Association, it was analyzed that the concentration of multi-family houses in atmosphere and soil increases the highest in the atmosphere and soil around the incineration site, and in particular, it has a significant impact on the human body for a longer period, at the time of measurement.

In addition, it is also a result of the academic community's research that if the incineration site is located in a branch of land, the air pollutants emitted from the brick are not left away and is likely to be confined, and there is a high possibility that the phenomenon is likely to occur (the preparation of an environmental impact assessment report for the preparation of an assessment report by project type, 207, and the Korea Environment Policy Evaluation Institute). The results of the academic community's research that the planned area and its surrounding areas of the project in this case are expected to be suspended and difficult to occur frequently compared to other areas because the area of the project in this case is surrounded by mountain, and accordingly, it is anticipated that it will have an adverse impact on the growth and soil of nearby forest, spathy field, spathy field, ginseng field, etc. (the evidence of subparagraph 32, the feasibility review of the urban management planning proposal (medical waste incineration plan) prepared by the Cheong Engineering Co., Ltd. according

(C) With respect to air pollution prevention facilities of incineration facilities, the efficiency of selective evirative typization (SNCR, method of removing nitrogen oxides by returning it to nitrogen and water without any promotional evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evir) adopted by the Plaintiff, there is a problem that the evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative evirative

(D) On the other hand, according to the Environmental Management Corporation’s “Research on Management Measures by Empstack Tele-Monitoring System (Tms),” which was drawn up at a large-scale agency, it is difficult to verify the input time and input amount of the incineration by the retirement of ms as a terminal, and it is also pointed out that it is necessary to supplement and improve the communications program and database.

(E) In addition, the result of the measurement of the multi-household density in the domestic urban garbage incineration plant shows that many incinerations in excess of the permissible emission levels have been inspected.

(5) Details of the basic urban planning at residence

(A) According to the basic urban planning in 2016 at the time of residence in around 1998, the right to paintings containing the instant project site is planned as a development plan for each living zone, “residential and agricultural functions” as a development plan for each living zone, and as a development plan for the industry, the development of specialized crops such as Posito, apology, etc. and the fostering of specialized farmers.

(B) The basic urban planning in 2020 was established and finalized on May 27, 2007 after conducting a basic investigation for the establishment of the basic urban planning in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and was approved by the Do governor on July 31, 2008 by the Do governor on July 31, 2008. According to the above basic urban planning, the plan was planned to function as the power supply dwelling, agriculture, tourism, and recreational place in the west-west area where the instant planned area belongs. In particular, it is located in the west-gu area of the Si where the area of the instant planned area is located, namely, the west-do area of the Si where the area of the instant planned area is located, namely, the west-do area of the Si where the area of the instant planned area is located, that is, the area of tourist development and the area of tourist development.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 4 through 6, Gap evidence 16, Gap evidence 17, Gap evidence 19, Gap evidence 25-2, Gap evidence 25-7 through 10, Eul evidence 8-11 through 14, Eul evidence 9 through 11, Eul evidence 14-3, Eul evidence 14-3, 4, Eul evidence 32 through 34, the whole purport of pleadings,

C. Whether the discretion is deviates or abused

(1) Issues

Urban planning means a plan for spatial structure and development direction to be established for the jurisdiction of the Special Metropolitan City, a Metropolitan City, or a Si/Gun, which is divided into a basic urban planning and an urban management plan (see Article 2 subparag. 2 of the National Land Planning Act). The instant waste disposal facility is an “environmental infrastructure facility, such as sewerage and waste disposal facilities,” which is an infrastructure under Article 2 subparag. 6 (g) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and its daily disposal capacity is 24, and thus, Article 2 subparag. 4 and 6 of the same Act, Article 156 subparag. 1 (c) of the Rules on the Standards for Determination, Structure and Establishment of Urban Planning Facilities, Article 38 subparag. 1 (c) of the Enforcement Rule

According to Articles 24(1), 26(1), and 29(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, an urban management plan may be determined by a Mayor/Do Governor either directly or at the request of the head of a Si/Gun. The Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head of a Si/Gun may formulate an urban management plan, and interested parties, such as residents, etc., may propose the formulation thereof to the authority to formulate the urban management plan. The above urban management plan constitutes an administrative

However, based on a professional and technical judgment on administration, an administrative plan is set as an activity standard to realize certain order at a certain point in the future by integrating and coordinating administrative means related to each other in order to achieve a specific administrative objective such as the construction, maintenance, and improvement of a city, and there is only the abstract administrative goals and procedures in the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the National Land Planning Act, but does not have any particular provision regarding the contents of the administrative plan. Thus, the administrative agency is deemed to have a relatively wide range of freedom in formulating and determining a specific administrative plan. However, the freedom of such formation, which the administrative agency has, is not unlimited, but is not limited to the public interest and private interest of the persons involved in the administrative plan, as well as to the legitimate comparison and comparison between public interest and private interest.

Therefore, in a case where an administrative body fails to implement the balancing of interests at all in formulating and determining an administrative plan, or omits matters that should be included in the subject of consideration of the balancing of interests, or where the balancing of interests does not lack legitimacy and objectivity, the determination of the administrative plan is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du8365, Jan. 11, 2007, etc.). Such a legal principle is equally applied to a case where an administrative body accepts a proposal for formulating an urban management plan pursuant to Article 26 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and determines whether to determine the urban management plan.

In this case, the defendant's disposition of this case seeking its revocation was rejected by exercising its discretionary authority against the plaintiff's motion that proposed the plaintiff to formulate the waste disposal facilities of this case as an urban management planning facility of this case. Accordingly, the issue of this case is whether the defendant has made objective and justifiable balancing in accordance with the above legal principles while rendering the disposition of this case.

In addition, based on the grounds for the first or third disposition that the Defendant committed based on the instant disposition, we will examine whether the Defendant imposed objective and legitimate balancing of interest on the need for the public interest in installing the instant waste disposal facilities in the instant planned area, the Plaintiff’s protection interest, and the purpose of public interest that the Defendant seeks to achieve due to the instant disposition.

(2) Nature of and compliance with the basic urban planning

Basic urban planning refers to a comprehensive plan that presents the basic spatial structure and long-term development direction for the jurisdiction of the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities, Sis, or Guns (see Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the National Land Planning Act). The basic urban planning is formulated based on the comprehensive national land plan under Article 8 of the Framework Act on the National Land, and is subject to the approval of the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs or the Governor.

The above basic urban planning is a long-term and comprehensive development plan that serves as a guideline for urban development direction and future situations, and has no direct binding force on administrative agencies (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1893, Apr. 12, 2007). Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that an urban management plan is unlawful immediately solely on the ground that the urban management plan violates or differs from that of an urban planning. However, when the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head of a Si/Gun formulates a plan by sector on the environment, traffic, water supply, sewerage, housing, etc. under other Acts with regard to an area under his/her jurisdiction (Article 4(2) of the National Land Planning Act), the urban management plan must conform to the basic urban planning and the basic urban planning (Article 25(1) of the National Land Planning Act). Thus, it is clear that an administrative agency’s formulation of the basic urban planning plan corresponds to a higher basic plan of the urban management plan, and that it must be compared with the purpose of the basic urban planning and the public interest.

In this case, the Defendant compared and compared the Plaintiff’s application for drafting an urban management plan with the purpose of serving as a public interest to achieve the basic urban planning and its results pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations, and determined that the instant waste disposal facility is contrary to the basic urban planning. As seen earlier, the first half of the YY where the instant project site belongs is classified as a residential and agricultural area as well as a residential and agricultural area under the basic urban planning in 2016, which was established in 198 and was planned to function as a residential and agricultural area under the basic urban planning in 2020 when residing in 2020, and in particular, the second half of the Y where the YY belongs to the tourist development zone. In light of the fact that the aforementioned balance of the Defendant’s interest is not deemed to lack legitimacy or objectivity.

As to this, the plaintiff's application for the approval of mining plan for the forest land in the YYY, which is the same area as the land scheduled for the project in this case, the defendant sent a notice of the result of consultation upon the application for the approval of mining plan to the Gyeongbuk-do on December 2008, and expressed the opinion "Conditional A" under the condition to prevent forest damage due to soil and sand outflow, etc., and pointed out that there are several stone collection stations in the vicinity of the land scheduled for the project in this case, and the argument that the land planned for the project in this case violates the basic urban planning as a clean area is against the previous attitude and interest rate double. However, the plaintiff argued that the land planned for the project in this case is against the basic urban planning as a clean area without any limit on the work and period of simple mining the stone buried in forests and fields, and it cannot be deemed that the project in this case's project is identical to the forest image, environmental or living interests of the residents of the area. Therefore, the above defendant's assertion is not justified.

On the other hand, although the defendant's basic urban planning was approved by the Mayor/Do governor on July 31, 2008, which was after the date of the disposition in this case, the basic urban planning was already conducted for a long time, and the basic urban planning was already finalized on May 27, 2007, which was before the date of the disposition in this case, after going through a public hearing on February 27, 2007, after going through a public hearing on February 27, 2007, which was before the date of disposition in this case, the basic urban planning was not illegal and unjust in light of the above basic urban planning.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant waste disposal facilities have been designed eco-friendly in harmony with the surrounding natural environment, such as surrounding landscape and ground ground topography, and that all processes of waste disposal are constantly supervised by utilizing the highest level of technology, and that the Defendant does not conflict with images that are aimed at the instant basic urban planning. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s business plan and infectious waste disposal facilities as seen earlier, the previous research findings on the Plaintiff’s business plan and infectious waste disposal facilities, and the possibility of infringing the residents’ environmental and living benefits as seen thereafter, the above assertion cannot be accepted even if considering all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

(3) Opinions of residents and local councils, and the meaning of the result of consultation by the urban planning committee

Article 28(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun shall hear the opinions of the residents when an urban management plan is formulated and shall reflect such opinions in the draft of the urban management plan if deemed reasonable. Accordingly, Article 22(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that the procedures for public announcement and perusal of the draft of the urban management plan shall be followed; Article 28(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall provide that the submission

In addition, Article 28(5) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that when a person having the above authority intends to formulate an urban management plan, he/she shall hear the opinions of the local council concerned about the matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 22(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides for the decision of the urban management planning concerning the installation, maintenance or improvement of waste disposal facilities from

In addition, Article 20 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the Mayor/Do Governor, the Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Gun shall, if necessary, seek advice from the Central Urban Planning Committee or the Local Urban Planning Committee established in the local government, and Article 6 (2) of the Residential City Planning Ordinance provides that the Mayor shall determine whether to draft a plan on the urban management plan proposed by the residents to draft an urban management plan after receiving advice from the City Urban Planning Committee, and shall seek the proposer's opinions on complementary matters as a result of consultation.

The legislative intent of the provisions under the Act and subordinate statutes is to hear the opinions of local residents and local councils in drafting urban management planning and to undergo consultation by the City Urban Planning Committee. Ultimately, the legislative intent of the provisions under the Act and subordinate statutes is to induce the citizens to process it with careful consideration of all the elements in determining urban planning, as well as to reasonably coordinate the interests of majority interested parties to prevent unfair infringement on the rights of the people and to ensure democratization and trust in administration (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du2768, Mar. 23, 2000).

Therefore, although a drafting authority of an urban management plan is not necessarily bound by the result of the opinions of residents and local councils or the advice of the urban planning committee, in light of the above provisions of statutes or their legislative intent, the opinion submitted should be respected and seriously reviewed. If such opinion is deemed justifiable, the opinion should be reflected in the decision of drafting, and if such opinion is deemed justifiable, the opinion should not be easily rejected unless it is based on the decision of drafting, or unreasonable opinion is unclear. Therefore, the decision of formulating an urban management plan, which lacks legitimacy and objectivity in the comparative bridge of balancing profits, shall be deemed unlawful.

According to the health stand, Article 156 of the Rules on the Determination, Structure, and Installation Standards of Urban Planning Facilities, and Article 38 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act, etc., the general waste incineration site provides that the daily disposal capacity of at least 100 tons shall be determined for the installation of urban planning facilities if the daily disposal capacity of at least 10 tons is more than 10 tons, and that of the designated wastes such as infectious wastes shall be determined by the urban management plan for the installation of the urban planning facilities. This is to realize the legislative intent as seen above by prescribing that the above-mentioned waste disposal facilities have a significant impact on the surrounding environment or the lives of local residents in the case of waste disposal facilities, and thus, the above legislative intent shall be fully considered in determining whether to formulate the urban management plan to determine

The defendant, upon the plaintiff's request, has undergone all procedures such as public perusal and public announcement to hear the opinions of the residents, hearing the opinions of the City City Council, consulting with the City Urban Planning Committee, etc. As to this, the majority of the neighboring residents of 3,100 persons clearly presented the opposing opinions on the ground that the construction of the waste disposal facilities of this case would cause soil and water pollution, making it difficult to produce and sell local specialty, and the planned area of the project of this case is environment-friendly agricultural area, and the City Council and the City Urban Planning Committee also suggested the dissenting opinions on the ground that the above civil petition of residents and the planned area of the project of this case may cause soil and water pollution.

Accordingly, the defendant, in respect of each of the above opinions, presented a solution for the various adverse effects that the defendant and the residents of the relevant region are likely to know through the drafting proposal, and the resolution measures are all implemented, the negative effects cannot be completely ruled out, and there is more need to protect the interests that may be infringed rather than the interests that can be promoted through the installation of waste disposal facilities. Therefore, the above opinions of the residents are judged to be unreasonable or at least unreasonable, and the disposition of this case is likely to take place based on the balancing of interests.

Thus, unless there is a clear basis or unreasonable ground for the above opinion that the defendant accepted as the grounds for objection (the core of the above opinion is whether the waste disposal facility of this case is likely to infringe on the environmental and living interests of local residents or cause property damage), the defendant made a decision in accordance with the above opinion in determining whether to reflect the plaintiff's proposal in the formulation of the urban management plan, and it cannot be said that the defendant did not at all balance of interests or did not lack legitimacy and objectivity even though it did not amount to the profit.

As to whether the waste disposal facilities of this case are likely to infringe on the environmental and living interests of the present residents or cause property damage, it is also related to the grounds for the third disposition of this case, it shall be examined separately below.

(4) Whether the possibility of infringing interests in the environment and living is possible

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant and local residents’ assertion that the instant waste disposal facility would cause various environmental and living damages due to the instant waste disposal facility is nothing more than a unilateral assertion without any grounds, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant and local residents would not be a unilateral assertion that the instant waste disposal facility would cause various environmental and living damages due to the instant waste disposal facility, by discharging exhaust gas through air pollution prevention facilities, and by installing a remote control system (Tms) with the Ministry of Environment on incineration-out chimneys to control pollutants below the permissible emission level, and by controlling pollutants below the permissible emission level. In addition, the Defendant and local residents’ claim that the instant waste disposal facility would cause various environmental and living damages.

However, according to the following circumstances (i.e., waste generated from infections in various hospitals or testing and inspection institutions, which may cause harm to the human body; (ii) the risk of exposure is much more strict than that of ordinary domestic waste; (iii) it is necessary to apply more strict standards to review the impact of the incineration facilities on the health or agricultural crops of nearby residents; and (iv) according to the Defendant’s report on services, if medical treatment facilities are operated within the planned area, it is considerably contaminated by air, water quality, soil, and waste disposal facilities are not likely to cause damage to nearby local residents’ health and environmental deterioration; and (iv) it is difficult to readily conclude that there is no possibility that the Plaintiff’s aforementioned analysis can be conducted in a way that it is difficult for them to objectively reduce the likelihood of removal of pollutants by means of remote air pollutants, as it is difficult for them to find out that there is no possibility that there is no possibility that the Plaintiff would have any significant impact on the health of nearby residents, environmental deterioration, and growth of crops.

If so, raising the possibility of such multiple damages, it cannot be said that there is no basis for the residents’ intentions and the details of the resolution of the City Council, and the result of consultation by the City Urban Planning Committee, which indicated the opposing opinions on the proposal for drafting the instant waste disposal facilities (such possibility that the Plaintiff raised by the residents, does not seem to have shown a reasonable plan to prevent such various damages, specifically presented to the Defendant or residents, or made active efforts to seek understanding and understanding of the residents). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s decision refusing the Plaintiff’s request for drafting based on respect for each of the above opinions did not at all accord with the interests of the Defendant, or that it did not constitute a balancing of interests lacking legitimacy and objectivity.

(5) As to the extent necessary for the public interest in installing the instant waste disposal facility

Waste disposal facilities are not necessary to keep the natural and living environment clean by properly disposing of wastes, and such waste disposal facilities are also the responsibility of the State and local governments.

However, in light of the above circumstances, such as the impact or risk of infectious waste on the surrounding environment or residents' living interests, incidental damage caused by various images, collective civil petitions and conflicts among local governments surrounding whether waste disposal facilities are installed or not, the facilities to dispose of it should be limited to an appropriate scale within the necessary scope after comprehensively considering the volume of discharge, volume of disposal, etc. The place of installation also needs public interest to maintain balance among local governments by taking into account the current status of discharge, current status of disposal, etc. of each region.

In light of the above facts, if the plaintiff submitted a business plan to the Daegu regional environmental office for the year 205, the overall purport of argument as to this case, ① the nationwide emission volume of infectious wastes is about 59,056t and the total emission volume of Daegu and North Korea accounts for 10.8% of the total emission volume is about 6,406t (On the other hand, the total nationwide emission volume of wastes increased to 82,634t in 2007, but the total emission volume of Daegu and North Korea decreased to 5,687t in 205, ② In light of the current status of the defendant's intermediate waste treatment facilities for 205, it is difficult for the defendant to easily dispose of the above 20-day discharge volume of waste x 30-day waste treatment facilities x 40-day treatment facilities x 16-day treatment facilities x 30-day treatment facilities x 50-day treatment facilities x 16-day treatment facilities x 30-day treatment facilities x 16- day.

(6) The extent of protection and infringement of the Plaintiff’s interest

As to the disposition of this case which refused the plaintiff's drafting proposal, it is further considered whether the plaintiff's irrecoverable interest is infringed to the extent that it disregards the public interest that the defendant intends to achieve.

The following facts are acknowledged based on each of the above evidence. ① The original owner of the land scheduled for the instant project is Nonparty 2, the representative director of the non-party 1 corporation, who filed an application for permission to convert a mountainous district into neighboring forests. The plaintiff purchased the land of this case which was actually suspended from the above non-party 2 for the purpose of implementing the instant project (the actual purchase price is unclear) and there is no material showing that the plaintiff would have carried out any construction works using additional costs on the ground. ② The waste to be disposed of by the plaintiff is inevitably generated by living or consuming in the jurisdiction of the resident or the general public, and is not directly related to the interests of the resident or the local government, nor is he bears the obligation to dispose of the infectious waste to be disposed of directly at the site of each of the national medical institutions, etc., and thus, it is nothing more than a profit-making business, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's construction or operation of the instant land is important to disregard the plaintiff's interest to the extent that it does not have any direct interest in the construction and operation of the instant land.

D. Sub-committee

In full view of the above decisions, with respect to the plaintiff's application that proposed the drafting of the instant waste disposal facility as the defendant's urban planning facility, the defendant had the opinion of the local residents and the City City City Council, the consultation of the City Urban Planning Committee was held pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations, and the possibility of infringing on the environmental and living interests of local residents and property damage, and whether it is contrary to the basic urban planning plan, which is the basis of the opposing opinion of each of the above agencies, were seriously reviewed and judged that it is not entirely reasonable or unfair, and the necessity of installing the instant waste disposal facility and whether it is necessary to install the instant waste disposal facility, and the degree of the plaintiff's interest to be infringed due to the instant disposition, and as a result, the

Therefore, the instant disposition is a legitimate disposition made within the scope of the Defendant’s discretion as to the urban management plan, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Choi Choi-sik (Presiding Judge)