부적정 통보처분취소 청구
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to construct livestock excreta and food waste disposal facilities on the ground of 2,991 square meters in C Miscellaneous land (hereinafter “instant prospective project site”).
On the other hand, the Defendant's Multi-Level Deliberation Council deliberated on the fact that the construction of food waste disposal facilities is not possible, and the Plaintiff applied for a complex deliberation by changing and supplementing the business plan from food waste to livestock excreta. On November 8, 2013, it was deliberated upon as a conditional permission of livestock excreta resource-generating facilities.
On January 16, 2014, after deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee on December 12, 2013, the Defendant issued a building permit for a livestock excreta facility building with the exception of food waste to the prospective project site in the instant case, and issued the approval for use on August 5, 2015.
B. On June 23, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted a waste treatment business plan with the content of conducting a general waste recycling business (food waste) at the site of the instant project, but the Defendant, on July 18, 2017, notified the Defendant of improper information on the ground that the installation of the instant waste treatment facilities for animals and plants residues and food waste disposal facilities in the instant project site is restricted in accordance with the guidelines for handling waste disposal facilities (hereinafter “instant guidelines”) pursuant to Article 25(2)4 and B of the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter “instant guidelines”) and Article 32 of the Farmland Act.
The Plaintiff filed an objection on July 31, 2017. On August 7, 2017, the Defendant sent a reply to the effect that, under the instant guidelines and the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, the notice of improper notification on July 18, 2017 was lawful, the Defendant filed an objection to the effect that “B City is an urban complex city with the largest Seoul metropolitan area, and it is a house, factory, waste disposal enterprise, etc. in the majority of regions, and the civil petition for environmental damage is extreme.”
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff on July 21, 2017 to the Defendant.