소송대리인 법무법인 ## 담당변호사 &&, **

Attorney Lee In-bok et al.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

(a) Proposal to formulate an existing urban management plan and succession to the status of the Plaintiff’s intermediate disposal business entity;

1) On March 26, 2001, B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) operated an interim disposal business for medical waste that collects and incinerates all medical waste generated throughout the country with an hourly disposal capacity of 250 km (one day disposal capacity of 6 metric tons) in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Seoul-do, Seoul-do, with a license for interim disposal business for medical waste under the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter referred to as “previous project site”).

2) Since August 28, 2007, B transferred the rights and obligations related to waste treatment business license to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and C succeeded to its status. Since then C planned to install an additional incineration facility with a hourly treatment capacity of 1 ton (24 ton per day treatment capacity) and applied for permission to change waste treatment business (Article 28(4) and [Attachment Table 7] of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act, which was wholly amended and enforced by Ordinance of Ministry of Environment No. 252 of Oct. 25, 2007, which was wholly amended and enforced by Ordinance of Ministry of Environment No. 252 of Oct. 25, 2007, the flow environmental office in the Nakdong River basin shall have an incineration facility with a disposal capacity of 1 ton per hour on January 28, 2008.

3) On November 12, 2010, C transferred the rights and obligations to a waste treatment business license to D, and D succeeded to its status. D again transferred the rights and obligations to a waste treatment business license to a stock company (hereinafter referred to as “No. 24 tons”) on January 10, 2013, and 7 succeeded to its status. ⑤ On May 16, 2013, C reported on the suspension of business until May 15, 2014 (the foregoing report on suspension of business continues to be extended, and the current report on suspension of business remains thereafter) (7) on June 20, 2013 (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 15 of the former Rules on the Installation of Urban Planning Facilities (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 281, Jul. 24, 2013).

5) On December 27, 2013, D: (a) based on Article 26 of the National Land Planning Act, proposed a formulation of an urban management plan to install an interim disposal facility of 30 tons of daily treatment capacity on the previous project site (hereinafter referred to as “first proposal”); (b) on January 9, 2014, the Defendant filed an administrative appeal with the competent district court 200 tons of daily treatment capacity change from 30 tons to 24 tons from 24 tons from the Nakdong River basin basin basin basin environmental office; (c) on January 24, 2014, the first proposal was withdrawn on January 24, 2014; and (d) on April 24, 2014, the Defendant filed an appeal with the competent district court 20 tons of daily treatment capacity to install an interim disposal facility of 24 tons of daily treatment capacity on the previous project site (hereinafter referred to as “the second proposal”). However, the Defendant filed an appeal with the competent district court 2014.

6) On the other hand, on October 13, 2015, on the other hand, on the ground of Ulsan-gun, the point of which is about 170 meters away from the previous project site to North Korea, the head of Ulsan-gun, the ○○○○65-3, the 65-3, a daily disposal capacity of medical waste interim disposal facilities (total size 3,983m) and the head of the Si management planning was proposed to install roads to enter the above waste disposal facilities (hereinafter referred to as “third proposal”), and the said application was withdrawn on December 28, 2015.

7) On October 31, 2016, D transferred the right and obligation to a waste treatment business license to E branch Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) and succeeded to the status of E branch, and E branch succeeded to the status of E branch, and E branch transferred the right and obligation to a waste treatment business license to the Plaintiff on May 24, 2017.

B. On September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff suggested the Defendant to formulate an urban management plan to install a daily treatment capacity of 24 tons of medical waste interim disposal facility (the total area of 3,983 square meters; hereinafter referred to as “the instant waste disposal facility”) and a road to enter the said waste disposal facility (hereinafter referred to as the “instant proposal”) on the ground of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do, where the land 65-3 was converted by the Plaintiff to the third proposal was located (hereinafter referred to as the “instant application site”). The Plaintiff suggested a formulation of an urban management plan to install a road to enter the instant waste disposal facility (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”).

C. On October 27, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the non-acceptance of the instant proposal, on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

A. Medical wastes generated from the total area of Ulsan City are difficult to accommodate applications for the formulation of an urban management plan for facilities that are opposed to residents in the relevant area for the following reasons, such as improper impacts on the environment, etc. at the time of Ulsan City, unless there are special circumstances to deem that separate medical waste treatment facilities are necessary in the operation of the facilities for the treatment of such wastes in the adjacent area. It is determined that the direct exposure of air pollutants due to geographical conditions, etc. is anticipated to have an impact on the residential and living environment, and that malodor is likely to be increased when the facilities are located in the vicinity of the relevant area. It is also difficult to review the installation of a new plan for the treatment of such wastes in order to ensure that the standards for the prevention of environmental malodor are not sufficient to meet the standards for the installation of air pollutants at the time of the implementation of the plan for the treatment of such wastes, such as 0,000,000 and the installation of a new plan for the treatment of such wastes in the vicinity of the relevant area.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 20, 22 through 24 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) Article 31(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that “A person who has already commenced a project or construction at the time of an urban or Gun management plan may continue the project or construction regardless of the determination of the relevant urban or Gun management plan,” and that an administrative agency may not have the discretion to refuse an application for formulating an urban planning by a business operator with respect to a business operator who has already conducted a project prior to the determination of the relevant urban or Gun management plan. As long as the Plaintiff operated an interim waste disposal business from the previous date, the Defendant may not refuse the application for formulating an urban planning for the Plaintiff’s project. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition against

2) The instant disposition is revoked inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s disadvantage is much greater than that of the public interest to be achieved through that disposition and did not fulfill objective and justifiable balancing, and is in violation of the law of deviation and abuse of discretionary power.

A) As to the reasons for disposal (A) is not a Si/Gun unit but a nationwide area, the need of the Plaintiff’s medical waste disposal cannot be deemed to be limited to the medical waste generated in Ulsan or its neighboring area. In fact, despite the recent increase in the medical waste management in Ulsan area, the risk of environmental pollution is realized due to the lack of disposal facilities. Therefore, it is unreasonable to deem that there is no need to extend the disposal facilities.

B) As to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Article

The plaintiff has made technical and business efforts to discharge pollutants within the permissible discharge standards while installing the waste disposal facilities of this case. Thus, failure to install waste disposal facilities on the ground of "the potential possibility of environmental pollution" that may occur in the process of waste disposal is not only an unjust infringement on the plaintiff's interest who has already obtained permission for the waste disposal business, but also gives up the appropriate disposal of waste and neglecting the cause of environmental pollution, which goes against

C) As to the reasons for the disposition, paragraphs (h) and (i)

The Plaintiff calculated the predicted emission amount of pollutants through a specialized company and prepared an environmental review report based on it. It is unreasonable for the Defendant to refuse the proposal of this case on the premise that malodor, water pollution, and air pollutants are generated under the premise that the Defendant cannot trust the above environmental review report without presenting reasonable grounds or reasons to reject it.

D) As to the reasons for disposal D. paragraphs (d) and (j) of this Article, a place most appropriate for the installation of incineration facilities from the perspective of natural environment protection is an area where an industrial complex is concentrated and a certain degree of pollutant is to occur, and the Corporation located within the area where the instant application is located is one of such an area. If it is impossible to install incineration facilities because neighboring residents or factories oppose the installation of incineration facilities, it is rather unreasonable from the perspective of natural environment protection.

E) As to paragraphs (e) and (f) of the Disposition Grounds

The plaintiff plans to install water supply facilities in incineration facilities, so water supply measures are prepared, and traffic through the local roads where waste transport vehicles will be newly installed does not need to pass through the entrance of the village. Even if waste transport vehicles pass the roads, it cannot be said that the vehicles sealed and cause any harm to the residents. Thus, rejection of the proposal of this case on this ground is unjust.

F) As to the waste disposal ground (k) of this case, the waste disposal facility of this case is located within the Corporation and there is no landscape that may harm the installation of incineration facilities. Moreover, there is no ground to believe that the Plaintiff has already secured the project site necessary for the project of this case and there is no reason to raise new ginseng financing since the incineration facilities have already been manufactured. Thus, the rejection of the proposal of this case on this ground is unjust.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The location and surrounding status of the instant application site

A person shall be appointed.

A) The entire area of the instant application site is 3,983 meters, among which the land category of 3,854 square meters is private land, and the remaining land category of 129 square meters is state-owned land as a ditch. The specific use area of the instant application site is a general industrial area.

B) Farmland adjoining to the south and south of the instant application site is widely distributed, and forest land adjoining to the north-west is located. The area applied is the upper region of the Daeam Dam, which is the water source. At approximately 50 meters of the area of the application, a small river, a small river recognized at a point of approximately 350 meters, approximately 440 meters south, and a small river, a local river flow at a point of approximately 350 meters south, and the river flow at a point of approximately 440 meters south. The river flow is also flowed to the Daeam Dam, which is a river of another local area, combined with the river of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as a water distance of approximately 8.3km);

C) Within approximately 500 meters around the instant application site, 14 small and medium enterprises are located in manufacturing enterprises (this is naturally occurring, 'OOCO'), and the instant application is located at the end of the north end of the Corporation, and most trees and swimmings are located at the present point of approximately 400 meters north of the instant application site, and G agricultural partnership operating a facility for converting excreta into livestock excreta with FF corporation operating a facility for treating food waste, etc. at a point of about 400 meters north of the instant application site, and the area where the said two enterprises are located was designated and announced as a control area under Article 2014-19 of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Notice No. 2014-69 on February 6, 2014. Meanwhile, at a point of approximately 460 meters south of the instant application site, a livestock corporation operating feed facilities for converting animal residues into a company, and a HH corporation and a facility for refining and refining of livestock excreta.

마) 이 사건 신청지로부터 남동쪽으로 약 455m 거리에 48가구, 103명이 거주하는 △△마을이, 서쪽으로 약 525m 거리에 159가구, 275명이 거주하는 □□마을이 있으며, □□마을 인근에는 ■■초등학교가 위치하여 있다.

2) Main contents of the instant project

A) The instant project is an interim waste disposal business that discharges and disposes of medical wastes (i.e., isolation medical wastes, tissue logistics wastes, sick wastes, blood contamination wastes, general medical wastes, etc.).

B) The Plaintiff plans to treat 24 tons of medical wastes a day by operating an incineration facility with a treatment capacity of one ton per hour for 24 hours, and plans to install a remote measuring system of exhaust gas (Tms and Tele Myming Syms) in a smokestack in an incineration facility to serve in linkage with the incineration and air pollution prevention system, and to ensure that automatic pollution levels are transmitted to the Korea Environment Corporation.

C) In order to fully entrust the treatment of all remaining materials and waste generated after incineration to an external company, and prevent malodor that may occur in the course of the operation of the instant business from spreading, the Plaintiff is planned to cover waste-generating plants and waste transport vehicles, incinerate wastes at high temperature above 850 ch, install hazardous gas treatment facilities, and form a green belt at waste treatment facilities.

D) If the instant waste disposal facility is operated, air pollutants, such as fine dust, sulfur oxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxide (NO2), are anticipated to be emitted. According to the environmental review document (i.e., the evidence No. 15; hereinafter referred to as “environmental review document of this case”) including the draft proposal of this case, the Plaintiff was predicted to meet the atmospheric environment standards in accordance with Article 12(2) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy and [Attachment] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28919, May 28, 2018).

A person shall be appointed.

3) Status of medical waste treatment

A) Medical waste treatment projects are conducted nationwide for 63,746 medical waste treatment facilities. Medical waste treatment projects are 115,054 tons, 125,421 tons in 201, 147,658 tons in 2012, 154,719 tons in 2013, 171,717 tons in 2014, 203,261 tons in 203,261 tons in 2015, 221,592 tons in 2016.

B) As of 2016, medical wastes generated 221,592 tons across the country, among which a total of 45,024 tons occurred within the jurisdiction of the East River basin, and account for 20.3% of the total amount of 21,413 tons occurred within the jurisdiction of the Daegu Regional Environmental Office, and account for 9.7% of the total amount of 9.8%. The total of 4,104 tons occurred in Ulsan Metropolitan area, and the total of 4,104 tons took place, and account for 703.3 tons of medical wastes carried over without being treated in the previous year over the country in 2016, and the quantity of medical wastes carried over without being treated in the previous year over the country in 2016 was 1,711 tons of the total of 18,56 tons of medical wastes disposed of by self-treatment in the whole country in 2015, 206 tons of the total of 18,566 tons of medical wastes disposed by self-treatment in the country.

D) As of the end of 2015, in light of the current state of medical waste disposal companies in the jurisdiction of the Daegu Regional Environmental Office and the East East River Basin Environmental Office, five companies with the number of those companies with the daily treatment capacity of 93 tons in racing (93 tons in daily treatment capacity), Gyeongnam-gun (5.2 tons in daily treatment capacity), Busan Gun (9.84 tons in daily treatment capacity), Gyeongsi-si (4.4 tons in daily treatment capacity), and Jinsi (6 tons in daily treatment capacity), 76,080.6 tons in calculation of the annual treatment capacity of these five companies.

4) Admissions of neighboring residents, enterprises, the Congress, etc.

가) 이 사건 신청지 인근의 ▲▲마을 이장, 노인회 회장 등 7명은 2017. 8. 원고에게 ① ▲▲마을에 공해, 악취 발생시 즉시 가동 중단하고 이를 정상화하여 가동하고, ② ▲▲마을이 상수원 상류이므로 폐수발생시 즉시 중단하고 이를 정상화하여 가동하며, ③ 원고가 ▲▲마을 발전기금을 기부하는 것을 조건으로 ▲▲마을 주민 전체를 대표하여 동의한다'는 주민동의서를 작성하여 교부하였다. 그러나 이와 달리 ▲▲마을 청년회는 2017. 10. 23. 피고에게 '우리 ▲▲마을 주민들은 동물화장장시설에 지금은 의료폐기물처리시설까지 온갖 혐오시설 허가로 인해 매일같이 생명의 위협을 받으며 살아가야 할 처지에 놓여 있다. 그러므로 우리 ▲▲마을 주민들은 단 하나의 혐오 시설도 허락하지 않고, ①0공단 내 대형 의료폐기물 처리시설의 허가를 강력히 반대한다.'는 뜻을 표시하면서 135명의 서명서를 첨부하여 의견을 제출하였다.

B) On September 21, 2017, the Seoul Metropolitan City Small and Medium Enterprise Council and the Emergency Countermeasure Committee against the installation of a medical waste incineration plant submitted to the Samdong-gun Office a written application for counterclaim signed by 1,017 members of the inspection and related enterprises. The main contents are as follows.

In the case of incineration of wastes containing heavy metals, such as a physical temperature, the soil content is highly likely to cause environmental pollution because harmful ingredients are emitted into the atmosphere, and antibiotic substances flow into the Corporation and the river in front of the village.

In order to pollute water quality, and to create more serious results in discarded air cancer.On the street, it belongs to the direct impact of the Corporation and the village from the site of application, and the indirect impact rights belongs to the influence of more villages and facilities including three elementary schools and middle and high schools. The employees of a large number of enterprises in the ○○ Corporation are likely to undermine the continuity of the work of the employees because they are unstable in installing incineration halls. ○○ former business site includes a large number of enterprises at the time of the establishment of waste disposal facilities and currently there are many changes in the current situation, and these surrounding enterprises are manufacturing businesses, which are all unrelated to high-pollution facilities, and the number of employees in the Corporation area is approximately 1,000. At the time of the operation of the daily disposal capacity of 6t scale of waste disposal facilities, neighboring enterprises are stored in dust, and they are likely to suffer much damage due to melting malodor and steel products in the previous administrative disposition. In light of the precedents of the Plaintiff, it is difficult to assert that the Plaintiff suffered more damage due to environmental pollution.

C) On September 25, 2017, the Yangsan City Council expressed its dissenting opinion on the ground that “the instant waste disposal facilities threaten 330,000 citizens and local residents’ right to survival, and the fact that the instant waste disposal facilities are installed in the vicinity of the Do history, which is one of the three major temples in Korea, and that the installation of a medical waste incineration site is carried out in the vicinity of the Do history, a global cultural heritage.”

D) In addition, the dissenting opinions of the residents of Ulsan-gun and the residents of Samnam-do were received several times.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, 8, Eul evidence 26 through 32, 42 through 49, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

A) An administrative plan refers to an activity criteria or establishment thereof established to realize order at a certain point in the future by integrating and coordinating relevant administrative measures based on professional and technical judgments regarding administration to achieve a specific administrative objective. An administrative agency has relatively broad freedom in drafting and determining a specific administrative plan. However, an administrative agency’s freedom of formation cannot be deemed unlimited. Since an administrative agency’s interest in the relevant parties is limited not only to public interests and private interests, but also to fairly compare and compare the interests of the parties concerned with public interests or private interests, such administrative agency’s decision may be deemed unlawful on the ground that the administrative plan lacks legitimacy and objectivity due to defects in the balancing of interests (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Du2467, Jul. 10, 2014; 2015Du26165, Apr. 21, 2016).

B) In the judicial review of a discretionary act, the court shall examine only whether the act in question deviates from or abused the discretion without drawing an independent conclusion, taking into account the room for determining the public interest based on the discretion of the administrative agency. The examination of whether the act in question deviates from or abused the discretion is subject to such determination, such as misconception of facts and violation of the principle of proportionality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du6181, Jul. 14, 2005). As regards such deviation or abuse of discretion, a person disputing the validity of such administrative act bears the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu861, Dec. 8, 1987; 2015Du41579, Oct. 27, 2016).

2) Claim that the instant disposition violates Article 31(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act

Article 31 (1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that "the determination of an urban or Gun management plan shall take effect on the date on which the topographical map is publicly announced pursuant to Article 32 (4), and the main sentence of Article 31 (2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act shall take effect on the person who has already commenced the project

Where a person is required to obtain permission, authorization, approval, etc., he/she may continue the project or construction, regardless of the decision on the relevant urban or Gun management plan. This is interpreted as a provision to protect the right to obtain permission and trust for the project or construction for a person who has already commenced the project or construction in conflict with the decision on the relevant urban or Gun management plan prior to the occurrence of the decision on the relevant urban or Gun management plan, based on the premise that the decision on the urban or Gun management plan exists.

In full view of the fact-finding results and the purport of the entire arguments on the Ulsan Metropolitan City, the main text of Article 31(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, premised on the existence of the determination of an urban or Gun management plan, is not applicable to the proposal in this case. The Plaintiff succeeded to the rights and duties of the former business operator under the permission for waste disposal business, and has already obtained permission for the installation of medical waste disposal facilities in a size of 24 tons per day from the Nakdong River basin basin basin basin environmental office. However, the Plaintiff’s administrative action under the Wastes Control Act and the establishment of an urban planning under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act are conducted according to separate purposes and requirements. Even if the Plaintiff was able to install the above waste disposal facilities in accordance with the permission for the above waste disposal business and its modification, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is unnecessary to determine the remainder of the waste disposal facilities as urban planning facilities under the National Land Planning Act and the former regulations on urban planning facilities entrusted by the administrative agency, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is not reasonable to establish the above urban or Gun management plan.

3) The assertion that the instant disposition was a deviation or abuse of discretion

A) As to paragraph (a) of the reason for disposal, the volume of medical waste generated within the jurisdiction of the Daegu Regional Environmental Office and the East River Basin Environmental Office exceeds KRW 10,00 tons per year among the medical waste generated within the jurisdiction of the Daegu Regional Environmental Office. However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed from the above recognition, ① can operate a business for nationwide medical waste disposal facilities, i.e., (i) it is possible to operate a business for nationwide medical waste disposal facilities; ② it is necessary to adjust supply and demand at the national level rather than for the benefit of all citizens using the medical facilities; ③ it is difficult to view that the current increase in the volume of medical waste generated throughout the country has little capacity to treat more than the quantity of medical waste generated throughout the country, even if it is difficult to view that there is a growing quantity of medical waste generated throughout the country, and thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s capability to dispose of such waste is unnecessary due to the increase in the volume of medical waste carried over without treating it in the year.

B) Grounds for disposal. (b) As to the above paragraph (b) and (c) of this case, the area of the application of this case is adjacent to the area of the Daeam Dam, which is a water source, and the operation of feed-making facilities for animal residuess that may cause malodor in the neighboring areas, and facilities for refining animal and plant waste oil is being operated. However, as seen above, the following circumstances revealed from the above acknowledged facts, i.e., the authority responsible for the management of the waste treatment facilities of this case: (i) the e.g., the Dadong River basin Environmental Office, which is the authority responsible for the management of the waste treatment facilities of this case, already conducted a permit to change the liver waste treatment business against the Defendant or its neighboring residents; (ii) the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the g., the g., the waste treatment facilities of this case.

C) The following circumstances revealed from the evidence revealed as to the above facts of disposal: ① the environmental review of this case is based on the Plaintiff’s request to a specialized enterprise to calculate the predicted emission quantity of pollutants and assess nearby environmental impacts; ② the Plaintiff presented specific data as to whether the environmental standards for air pollutants, such as fine dust, sulfur oxide, and ion oxide, are met through such environmental review document; rather, the Defendant is unable to trust the above specific data or insufficient facilities to reduce air pollutants (the Plaintiff’s plan to transmit the pollution level of air pollutants to the Korea Exchange (the competent administrative agency appears to be able to completely supervise the emission of air pollutants) and its reasons for disposal; ③ The environmental review of this case is difficult to consider that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to review and assess the environmental impact of the Plaintiff; ② the Plaintiff’s detailed data on the air environment at the time of the environmental review and assessment of traffic congestion, which are the same as that of the Plaintiff’s environmental disposal facilities, without any specific reasons for the lack of permissible emission levels, and thus, it appears that it is difficult for the competent administrative agency to review two different factors and four different from those of the Plaintiff’s.

D) With respect to paragraphs (d) and (j) of this case, the following circumstances revealed from the video of the above facts recognized as the disposal ground (38) and the evidence revealed as to the above facts, i.e., (i) the Corporation has already been established in the vicinity of the application site, and companies that may cause malodor in the surrounding area are already being operated; (ii) the Plaintiff prepared the application site at the end of North Korea of the Corporation; and (iii) even if there is a civil petition against neighboring residents and companies, the existence of such opposing civil petition itself cannot be deemed as a justifiable ground for not accepting the proposal of this case, and there is no reasonable ground for the civil petition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu6841, Feb. 10, 1998; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu6841, Feb. 10, 1998) through (c) the installation of a waste disposal facility of this case and its installation without any objective and reasonable ground for environmental pollution damage.

E) As to paragraphs (e) and (f) of the Disposition Grounds

을 제40, 41호증의 각 기재 및 영상에 의하면 원고가 주장하는 '새로 설치될 지방도로'란 기존의 지방도로를 확장하는 공사에 불과한 사정 등은 인정된다. 그러나 위 인정사실과 앞서 든 증거들로부터 앞 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 구 도시계획시설규칙 제157조 제4호에 의하면 폐기물 처리시설의 결정기준으로서 '용수와 동력을 확보하기 쉽고 자동차가 접근하기 편리하며, 폐기물 운송차량이 시가지를 관통하지 아니하는 지역에 설치할 것'을 정하고 있는바, 이 사건 신청지 인근에 마을이 있다.고 하여 위 규칙 규정상의 '시가지'라고 보기는 어려운 점, ② 이 사건 신청지를 드나들 폐기물 운송차량은 확장 공사가 진행되고 있는 지방도로에 연결될 진입도로를 통하여 이동할 계획이고, 위 진입도로는 사실상 지방도로에서 이 사건 신청지를 드나드는 용도로만 사용될 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 이 사건 신청지의 위치와 인근 도로의 시설상황에 비추어 보면, 폐기물 운송차량은 ▲▲마을 앞길보다는 경부고속도로 등 주요 도로가 위치한 반대쪽 도로를 주로 이용하게 될 것으로 보이고, 원고가 위 폐기물 운송차량을 밀봉 상태로 운행할 것을 계획하고 있는 점, ④ 원고는 소각시설 자체에 상수도 시설을 설치할 계획을 밝히고 있고, 그러한 계획에 장애가 있을 것이라는 사정이 달리 보이지 않는 점 등을 종합하면, 위 처분사유 마.항 및 바.항 역시 이 사건 제안의 거부사유로서 객관적이고 합리적인 사유라고 보기 어렵다.

F) In full view of the following circumstances as to the above facts as to the disposal ground (k) and the witness J’s testimony and the above evidence, namely, ① the instant waste disposal facilities are located within the ○○○ Industrial Complex and are likely to have no landscape to specially harm them by installing incineration facilities. ② The Plaintiff is already having secured the project site necessary for the instant project and the incineration facilities are already generated, and there seems to be little room for raising financial resources. As such, it is difficult to view the foregoing disposal groundk (k) as an objective and reasonable ground for rejection of the instant proposal.

G) Sub-committee: Whether the instant disposition is deviates from or abused the discretion

As seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize legitimacy of the instant disposal ground presented by the Defendant. Also, the following circumstances revealed from the above recognition, namely, ① the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of installing waste disposal facilities in the vicinity of the instant application site in order from around 2001 and operating the same business as the instant one. ② Since the construction of a new incineration facility after October 2007 requires at least one ton of the hourly disposal capacity of the incineration facility in accordance with the amendment of the Wastes Control Act, there is an inevitable aspect in the extension of the instant waste disposal facility. ③ The Ministry of Environment, the competent authority of the instant waste disposal facilities, has already conducted permission to change the intermediate disposal business with respect to C, the general manager of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s need to transfer the right and duty to permit the waste disposal business from the previous business operators, ④ The Plaintiff appears to have paid considerable expenses for the Plaintiff’s succession of the status of the Plaintiff’s daily interest treatment facilities, such as the need to cancel the construction of the instant waste disposal facilities, or the Plaintiff’s installation of the new waste disposal facilities in excess of the standards prescribed by the Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-py

Judge Lee Jong-soo

(2) the Minister of Environment shall dispose of wastes in a safe manner, such as incineration, mechanical disposal, chemical disposal, biological disposal, and other interim disposal of wastes.

The term " interim disposal business" means a business that conducts interim disposal in such a manner as deemed and publicly notified.

2) In the case of the intermediate disposal business of medical wastes under attached Table 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act, incineration not less than 1t per hour of disposal capacity.

The requirements for "facilities" are maintained in the current Enforcement Rules of the Wastes Control Act.

3) According to Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the current Wastes Control Act, “medical wastes” shall be transferred to public health and medical institutions, veterinary clinics, testing and inspection institutions, etc.

Wastes that may cause harm to human bodies, such as infections, and extracted articles, such as human tissue, and experimental animals, from among the generated wastes;

Wastes prescribed by Presidential Decree, which are deemed to require special management for public health and environmental protection, such as carcasses;

(c)