[쓰레기소각장입지지역결정고시취소청구][공2005.4.15.(224),596]
Where an agency installing waste disposal facilities has not been designated and publicly announced as the affected neighboring area, the requirements for residents living outside 300 meters from the boundary of the site of the waste incineration facilities to be entitled to sue to seek confirmation of invalidity of the disposition determined and publicly notified as the site of the waste incineration
The purpose of the former Act on Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance to Adjacent Areas (amended by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is to protect the individual interests of residents in a pleasant environment without environmental damage exceeding the tolerance limit compared to the previous business year and the construction site boundary of waste incineration facilities. Thus, the above environmental benefits of the residents in relation to the determination and public notice of the site of incineration facilities are direct and specific interests individually protected to individual residents, and it is presumed that there is a concern of infringing or infringing on the environmental interest in the environment, and thus, it is recognized that standing to sue can be sought for nullification of the disposition of removal facilities by deciding and notifying the site of the waste incineration facilities within the direct and significant environmental impact zone which is anticipated to be affected by the business, or residents in the indirect impact zone within 300 meters of the construction site of the waste incineration facilities, or by the residents in the affected affected area who reside within the boundary of the site of the waste incineration facilities.
Article 17(1) and (3)2 of the former Act on Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance to Adjacent Areas (amended by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002), Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance to Adjacent Areas, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Plaintiff (Appointed Party)
Ansan Market (Attorney Kim Dong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu16599 delivered on October 28, 2003
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the disposition of this case in relation to the project of installing garbage incineration plants to dispose of household garbage generated at Ansan-si on November 6, 200, pursuant to Article 9 of the former Act on the Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Support for Adjacent Areas (amended by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), which decided and publicly notifies an area where garbage incineration stations are located. Since the criteria for the selection of site were omitted at the time of the announcement of the site selection plan of this case, or three representative representatives among the members of the Selection Committee are selected by the City Council pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the disposition of this case did not violate the procedures prescribed in the Act, and the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff")'s assertion that the above disposition of this case does not have the effect of standing to sue in the affected adjacent areas of this case on the ground that there are no special circumstances that the plaintiff's interests or interests in the affected areas of this case cannot be asserted within the affected areas of this case.
2. Comprehensively considering the relevant provisions of the Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the Minister of Environment or the head of a local government (hereinafter referred to as the "agency installing waste disposal facilities") who intends to install and operate facilities with a capacity of disposal capacity of 50t a day shall determine and publicly announce a site selection plan (Article 9 (1) of the Act), and the agency installing waste disposal facilities shall determine and publicly announce the surrounding area which is affected environmentally due to the installation and operation of the relevant waste disposal facilities (hereinafter referred to as the " affected adjacent area") within the period prescribed by the Presidential Decree (Article 17 (1) of the Act), and the affected area shall be divided into the right of direct impact and indirect impact of the affected area. Since a specialized research institute selected by the Resident Support Consultative Body is anticipated to have a direct environmental impact on human and animal activities, agricultural or livestock products, forest products, or fishery products, and it is recognized that there is a need for relocation of residents within the boundary of the area where the aforementioned facilities are located within 300 meters away from the boundary of the site for environmental incineration facilities (Article 17).
Upon examining the above legal principles in light of the records, the plaintiff is a person who resides in an area less than 900 meters away from the above site boundary of the above site. The plaintiff can find out the fact that forest land is obstructed between the site of the waste disposal facility of this case and the village where the plaintiff resides. In this case, the plaintiff did not prove that the construction and operation of the above waste disposal facility of this case is likely to infringe or infringe on the environmental interest. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have standing
The court below's decision that the plaintiff has no standing to sue solely on the ground that the plaintiff does not reside in the above area within 300 meters from the boundary of the above waste disposal facility site; and that the plaintiff does not reside in the above area is erroneous. However, the conclusion that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as a lawsuit filed by a person who has no standing to sue is just, and there is no error of law
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)