208Guhap3198. Partial revocation of the Conditions of Permission

P Industry Corporation

Law Firm Samok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Ba-young

The head of the Gu of the Busan Metropolitan City

Attorney Park In-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

November 6, 2008

December 11, 2008

1. On July 10, 2008, the terms and conditions of permission for the interim construction waste disposal business that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on July 10, 200 as indicated in Annex A(1) shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 30, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for a construction waste interim disposal business license to the Defendant in order to operate a construction waste interim disposal business on the fourth parcel of Busan Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. On July 10, 2008, pursuant to Article 21(4) of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act (hereinafter “the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act”) and Article 12(5) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Defendant licensed the construction waste interim disposal business as follows to the Plaintiff and issued its license (hereinafter “instant disposal”).

0. Trade name: The site size of construction waste for the P industry corporation 0: 4,630 square meters of waste concrete disposal facilities: 5,630 square meters of waste concrete disposal facilities: 1 type (1,00 tons of waste disposal facilities), 1 type of measurement facilities (100 tons/day), 1 unit for ramper (1.9m), 1 unit for collecting and transporting vehicles: A (1,600 tons of waste disposal facilities (11 day): 11,60 tons of waste disposal facilities (7,250m of waste): 660 square meters of waste disposal facilities (7,250m of waste disposal facilities). However, the disposal of this case was attached to the same conditions of permission as shown in attached Table 1, and among the conditions of permission, the residents' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives and organizations shall prepare and submit the agreement on the commencement of use of residential facilities (YYA), the residents' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives and residents' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives.

2. Whether a disposition is lawful or not: (a) the facts without dispute; (b) Gap evidence; (c) the entry of Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 2; and (d) the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant, while rendering the instant disposition, presents the conditions of permission to prepare and submit a written agreement with neighboring residents and organizations before filing a report on the commencement of the use of construction waste disposal facilities. Thus, it is impossible to commence business unless the Plaintiff prepares and submit a written agreement. As such, the Defendant’s act as the condition of the instant disposition is illegal as it is without legal basis, and thus, should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form (2) is as listed in Annex 2.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff submitted a business plan to the Defendant to conduct a construction waste interim disposal business in the instant application site and received a proper notification from the Defendant on June 23, 1997, but failed to file an application for permission due to bankruptcy, relocation of graves, interference with residents construction, etc., and the period of permission for the waste disposal business was extended until June 20, 2005, and January 19, 2005 pursuant to the Construction Waste Act enacted.

As above, the business plan notified as above became effective until June 30, 2008.

(2) As above, the aforementioned proper business plan includes the contents that the Plaintiff would minimize noise and dust damage by installing a sandbrid board and a dust-proof network, installing an automatic washing machine, installing production facilities and air pollutants preventive facilities (surgical cleans), and installing a cover with a transport device.

(3) After the urban planning was decided on May 14, 1998 as a waste disposal business site, the project site in this case was authorized on November 9, 1998 as an implementation plan for the urban planning project, and the final authorization was granted on October 24, 2007 as an urban planning facility project.

(4) In order for the Plaintiff to operate a construction waste interim disposal business, most of the waste disposal facilities were installed after lawful procedures for permission for construction waste disposal are completed.

(5) From November 2007, residents of YY Village located in a place less than approximately 200 meters away from the instant project site to the south of the construction waste disposal business, they strongly object to the construction of the waste disposal site by the head of the Gu’s interview, submission of a petition, submission of the Gu Council petition, etc., and the neighboring mechanical construction construction construction corporation has a enormous impediment to the operation of a factory that requires a close progress in the event of a dust from the disposal of construction waste in its neighboring Z apartment and ZZdong residents oppose to the operation of waste disposal business in each of the instant application site on the grounds that they are suspected facilities.

(6) The Plaintiff attempted to reach an agreement with neighboring residents on several occasions, but did not reach an agreement smoothly.

(7) The transfer of the instant disposition in the territory of the Busan Metropolitan City, where the instant project site is located

From the beginning, construction waste interim disposal companies, such as SS corporation and TT development, continue to conduct business.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 9-1 through 13, Gap evidence 10, 11-1, 2, Gap evidence 12, 13-11, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 6-1 through 29, Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of whole pleadings

D. Determination

In light of all the circumstances such as the construction volume, priority of construction waste disposal law, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the guidelines for the management of construction waste disposal business, etc., the consent of neighboring residents is not subject to the requirements or conditions for interim construction waste disposal business (it cannot be interpreted that necessary measures under Article 14 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Waste Act, which provide for the conditions of permission for construction waste disposal business, include the consent of neighboring residents). The following circumstances that can be known by the above recognition, the Plaintiff already established measures to prevent damage, such as dust and noise, and received the appropriate notification of the business plan from the Defendant. In other words, the instant construction site was already determined on urban planning from 1998 to the site of waste disposal business, and the waste disposal facilities necessary to operate interim construction waste disposal business have already been completed through legitimate procedures, and it is unlawful to take the Defendant into account the fact that construction waste disposal facilities have already been installed and submitted as one of the conditions of permission under the Act.

3. Conclusion

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

The effects of the presiding judge and judges;

Judges Kang Jin-ju

Judges Park Jong-sung