2015Guhap50542 Revocation, etc. of Authorization

A An incorporated association

The Minister of Environment

2015, 10 October 20

November 13, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On December 30, 2014, the Defendant’s revocation of the authorization for recycling business mutual aid associations and revocation of the authorization for the establishment of non-profit corporations shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff obtained permission for the establishment of a non-profit corporation on September 26, 200 (hereinafter “instant permission”) from the Defendant to vicariously fulfill the obligation of producers obligated to recycle lighting fixtures products (the manufacturer or importer of light light”), and obtained approval for the establishment of a recycling business mutual aid association (hereinafter “mutual aid association”) pursuant to Article 27(4) of the Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources (hereinafter “Resources Recycling Act”) on December 12, 2003.

B. On December 30, 2014, the Defendant revoked the instant permission and the instant authorization, respectively (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”), on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated the law (Article 38 of the Civil Act in the case of permission for establishment of a nonprofit corporation, Article 28-5 of the Resource Recycling Act in the case of a mutual aid association), the terms and conditions of permission for establishment, the violation of the conditions of permission, and the damage to public interest”) were revoked (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for recognition”), and that there is no dispute over the instant permission and the instant revocation of the instant authorization”).

2. Related statutes;

Attached Table 1 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Regarding procedural defects

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant stated in the written disposition that "legal violation (Article 38 of the Civil Act), violation of the conditions of permission for incorporation, violation of the conditions of permission for incorporation, damage to public interest", "violation of law (Article 28-5 of the Resources Recycling Act), violation of the conditions of permission for incorporation, and infringement of public interest" on the grounds of the disposition of this case, and in detail, it cannot be seen at all as to which the plaintiff's act constitutes grounds for disposition on the ground of his own. Since each disposition of this case violates the duty to present

2) Facts of recognition

A) From March 6, 2014 to October 21, 2014, the Defendant issued each corrective order (hereinafter “each of the instant corrective orders”) with the same content as the attached Table 2 “main contents of the corrective order” to the Plaintiff once every eight times from March 6, 2014.

B) On November 19, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the hearing was held prior to each of the dispositions of this case (Evidence No. 3 (Notice of Hearing Execution), stating “the fact that there was a cause for the disposition as follows,” and “the notice of this case” is called “the notice of this case.”

1. The Civil Act, the Ministry of Environment, and the Korea Meteorological Administration violated the regulations on the establishment and supervision of nonprofit corporations under the jurisdiction of the Korea Meteorological Administration, the Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources (hereinafter referred to as the “Resources Recycling Act”), the articles of incorporation, and various regulations, and the direction and supervision of the Republic of Korea, and thereby violated the conditions of permission for establishment and the conditions of approval for recycling business mutual aid associations. There was a violation of the obligation to recover waste light, etc. transferred to local governments, the obligation to collect waste light, etc. was not complied with, and the procedures for manufacturing and purchasing waste light, etc. were not complied with, and there was a prosecution against the president of the Association regarding the crime committed by reason of the arbitrary determination of recycling contributions and subsidies (the crime committed by this). In relation to the above matters, the Association failed to comply with the direction and supervision of the Republic of Korea and implemented it in a timely manner on more than three occasions, and it did not correct it properly even after receiving a corrective order issued by the Ministry of Environment pursuant to Article 28-4 of the Resource Development Act.

2. Where it is difficult for a producer obligated to recycle to perform his/her duty to recover and recycle, which is an establishment objective of the Association, because the status of the Association is significantly deteriorated due to recycling dues, etc. imposed due to illegal performance of the Association’s business for the achievement of the establishment objective;

C) On December 4, 2014, the Plaintiff’s representative, the secretary general, and the head of the support headquarters appeared on the date of the open hearing, and expressed their opinions on “the facts causing the above disposition”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 8, 10, 11, 28, 29, and 31, the purport of the whole pleadings

3) Determination

A) Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall present the basis and reasons for a disposition. This purport is to exclude arbitrary decisions of the administrative agency and allow the parties to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure. Thus, in a case where it is sufficiently possible to ascertain whether a disposition was taken by the parties at the time of the disposition, and where it is deemed that there was no particular hindrance to the party’s appeal and moving into an administrative remedy procedure, even if the grounds and reasons for the disposition are not specified in the written disposition, such disposition cannot be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du12570, Sept. 4, 2014).

B) In light of the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged as seen earlier, it appears that the Plaintiff could have sufficiently predicted the existence of each of the dispositions in this case for any reason, and even though the specific Plaintiff’s act, etc. was not indicated in each of the dispositions in this case’s written disposition, it cannot be deemed that there was an obstacle to the Plaintiff’s appeal and moving toward the administrative remedy procedure.

① The Plaintiff’s representative, etc. appeared on the hearing date and presented his opinion on the grounds for the disposition.

② Even before receiving the instant notice, the Plaintiff received each of the instant corrective orders from the Defendant. The instant corrective orders included specific corrective matters in the corrective orders, and were given several times, and each of the instant dispositions was issued, and the corrective orders was also issued even before the lapse of two months.

(b) the existence of the reasons for the measure;

1) Legal grounds for revocation

A) Article 38 of the Civil Act provides for the cancellation of permission for establishment of a nonprofit corporation and the cancellation of authorization of a mutual aid association under Article 28-5 of the Resource Recycling Act. We examine whether the grounds for revocation exist under each of the above provisions.

B) The revocation of the authorization of this case

(1) Article 28-4(1) of the Resource Recycling Act provides that where the operation, execution, etc. of a cooperative violates any Act or subordinate statute or the articles of association as a result of a report, inspection, etc. under Article 36(1), a corrective order may be issued, and Article 28-5(3) of the same Act provides that where a corrective order under Article 28-4(1) is issued but fails to be corrected, the authorization of a mutual aid association may be revoked if it is prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment. Article 23 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, which is Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, provides that "if a cooperative fails to comply

(2) Regarding transparency and adequacy of corporate operations

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

It is true that B, the president of the Plaintiff’s Association, is the real owner of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), however, the Plaintiff concluded and maintained a recycling contract with C, such as waste mine, etc., at a reasonable transaction price regardless of the fact. Although B was investigated as suspicion of breach of trust, etc. against the Plaintiff, C, etc., it was true that B was investigated as a result of suspicion of breach of trust against the Plaintiff, C, etc., it was subject to a non-prosecution disposition as to the remainder in addition to the embezzled portion. The Defendant’s corrective order related to transactions with the head of the Association,

(B) Facts of recognition

① From January 2006 to February 2020, the Plaintiff entered into a recycling contract with C for about 14 years.

On March 6, 2014, the 18th day of the same month, and 26th day of the same month, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff to cancel the long-term monopoly contract with C operated by a specially related person.

③ Around June 3, 2014, the board of directors of the Plaintiff was composed of seven members. However, D, the representative director of B and C, and E’s directors and employees of E, as well as F, was included.

(4) As of January 16, 2015, the composition of the executives of the Plaintiff, C, E, G, and H are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

⑤ On the other hand, at the time of each of the instant dispositions, the investigation on B was under way on the charge of occupational breach of trust with respect to the Plaintiff. After that, B was charged with embezzlement of money from various corporations including the Plaintiff by means of receiving the difference, after having the Plaintiff set the amount higher than the actual amount of wages under the name of the employee on July 23, 2015, and was charged with the remaining suspicion of non-prosecution disposition by lack of evidence.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each of the evidence as seen earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 22, 23, Eul evidence Nos. 14 to 21, the purport of the whole pleadings

(C) Determination

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the facts and evidence, each of the above corrective orders cannot be deemed unlawful merely on the ground that B received a disposition not to institute a prosecution on the substantial portion of the suspicion of the investigation.

(1) Under the transaction structure between specially related persons, there is a risk of a problem, such as unfair operation of the Plaintiff, which is a nonprofit corporation, and preventing and supervising such issues in advance constitutes the defendant's business.

② As one of the problems caused by the special relationship, the investigation of B was conducted, and each of the above corrective orders was conducted in the same situation.

③ Although having received a non-prosecution disposition on the substantial portion of the facts alleged in B, the fact of partially occupational embezzlement was found to have been charged. (B) Until the Defendant issued a corrective order to organize the Recycling Expenses Committee, the Plaintiff arbitrarily determined and paid the amount of recycling subsidies without undergoing objective procedures.

(3) Regarding the duty to recover waste light, etc.

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

The content of the corrective order issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff can actively recover waste light, etc. by establishing a cooperative system with the local government. It does not constitute a matter of not directly collecting waste light, etc. among the subsidies granted to the local government.

However, as part of the measures to secure the financial soundness of the plaintiff, only the plan proposed by the plaintiff to the defendant, but not actually implemented. The defendant expressed that such proposal is inappropriate because it is contrary to the resource recycling law, and did not actively issue a corrective order.

Even if a corrective order exists, in light of the provisions of Article 14 of the Wastes Control Act and Article 8(3) of the Guidelines on the Separation, Collection, etc. of Recyclable Resources, the Plaintiff is not obligated to recover the waste light, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff is not in violation of the corrective order.

(B) Facts of recognition

① Of the instant corrective orders, the details of the corrective order issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff regarding the duty to recover waste mine lights are as follows.

Order of 30 July 30, 2014 (No. 11)

4. In addition, the Association must fulfill its obligation to recover and finance the products subject to mandatory recycling under Articles 16 and 27 of the Resource Recycling Act, Articles 4 and 6 of the Association’s articles of incorporation. The Association is currently taking advantage of the type of light, etc. collected by the entire local government, and the Association is very passive, and it is deemed difficult to achieve the Association’s recycling performance for the gold year. On 15th, our Ministry shall take prompt measures to demand correction as follows, and submit the division to Korea by August 8, 2014 (gold).

B. Corrective Order of September 4, 2014 (Evidence A No. 4)

2. Our Ministry has continuously ordered a recycling business mutual aid association under Article 27 of the Recycling of Resources Act to report measures to ensure financial soundness and to revitalize recovery and recycling of waste minerals, etc., but it has not been reported to our Ministry in a state where specific measures to address fundamental issues are not included.3. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 28-4 of the Recycling of Resources Act, we shall promptly issue an order for correction as follows and submit the results to our Ministry until September 15, 2014. (b) In accordance with Articles 16 and 27 of the Recycling of Resources Act, we shall actively recover waste mines, etc. and properly dispose of them in accordance with recycling methods and criteria such as light under Article 13 of the Recycling of Resources Act.

C. Corrective Order (Evidence A No. 6) dated September 29, 2014

On September 4, 2014, after reviewing the results of the Association's report on the corrective order of the division of Korea (as of September 19, 2014) (as of September 18, 2014), some matters were not corrected, and some parts were judged to have not presented the corrective measures, and ordered correction as attached under Article 28-4 of the Resource Recycling Act, and the result was submitted to us by October 8, 2014.2.

D. Correction Order (No. 8) October 21, 2014

2. The review of the results of the Association's measures taken against our father's corrective order (as of September 29, 2014) (as of October 8, 2014), it is time to issue an order of correction as attached under Article 28-4 of the Resource Development Act, through thorough implementation, and submit the results to Korea no later than October 28, 2014, after reporting the results of the Association's measures to take place (as of October 8, 2014). The results of the review are as follows: (a) it has not been corrected; (b) it has been determined that some of the matters have not been corrected; and (c) it has been ordered to issue an order of correction as attached under Article 28-4 of the Act on Resource Development; and (d) it has been submitted to Korea; (c) it has reported the results of the implementation of the detailed plan and implementation plan to establish cooperation with the local government.

② Upon receiving a corrective order issued on July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on August 8, 2014, without including a resolution method related to the duty to recover, and subsequently, on September 18, 2014, reported to the effect that the local government’s local self-support subsidy was suspended and the free transport portion is a plan to be changed under the condition of transport under its own burden to the disposal site. While receiving a corrective order again, it is impossible to cope with the duty to recover the waste light, etc. as of October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff considered that the local government’s obligation to recover the waste light, etc. was not the Plaintiff but the local government’s obligation to bear the cost of recovery.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence as seen earlier, entry of Gap evidence No. 5, overall purport of oral argument, existence of corrective order, and whether the order has been violated

According to the above facts, the defendant sent a document clearly stating that the defendant ordered correction under the title of "Corrective Order", in total four times, and the defendant issued a corrective order to the plaintiff to the effect that the defendant will perform obligations in relation to recovery of mine mine closure, etc. and seek cooperation measures with the local government. On the premise that the plaintiff has no obligation to recover from the report, it seems that the plaintiff clearly expressed his/her intention not to comply with the above corrective order.

(D) Whether the corrective order was unlawful

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the facts and evidence and the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, each of the above corrective orders based on the Plaintiff’s duty to recover and recover waste light, etc. cannot be deemed unlawful.

(1) Article 16(1) and (2), Article 18(1) and (2), and Article 28-2(1) of the Resource Recycling Act include the duty of recovery, in addition to the duty of recycling to the mutual aid association.

(2) In the process of amendment of the Resource Recycling Act as of May 22, 2013, the review report by the Environmental Labor Relations Commission, which is the competent committee, is written to the effect that Article 13-3 is newly established in order to preserve the collection cost of waste resources collected by a gold local government as a producer obligated to recycle, because there is any unreasonable reason for collecting waste resources subject to the EPR (producer Liability Recycling System), even though it is currently collected by local governments, but the obligated producers do not bear the expenses and collect them as taxes of the people.

③ Article 8(3) of the Guidelines on the Separate Collection, etc. of Recyclable Resources, which is an instruction of the Ministry of Environment, provides that “The head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall transport ... of packing materials for products subject to the duty to recycle under Article 16 of the Act and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, among the products subject to the duty to recycle ... of ... of plastic minerals, etc., to a recycling business establishment, and ... of ...... of ....” However, the provision of the above guidelines alone does not provide that the Plaintiff may not be obliged to recover b

(4) Article 14(1) of the Wastes Control Act provides that the head of a local government shall dispose of domestic wastes discharged from his/her jurisdiction. This provision is merely that provides that the head of a local government has a general obligation to dispose of domestic wastes, and does not seem to have provided for the duty to recover wastes by a producer obligated to recycle wastes. It is reasonable to view that the Act is a special provision for the duty to recycle domestic wastes

⑤ Under the title of “Guide to Submission of Implementation Plans for Recovery and Mandatory Recycling” in 2014, the Defendant included the content that the producer should submit additional plans to fulfill the obligation to recover in the existing recycling performance plan to the extent that the scope of the producer’s obligation is expanded (recycling - recovery and recycling).

(5) Article 28-2 (3) of the Resource Recycling Act explicitly stipulates that the head of a local government collects wastes, if a distribution support center is established, the distribution support center shall transfer the wastes to the distribution support center, and the distribution support center shall compensate for the collection cost, etc., shall provide for the distribution support center.

(4) The organization of the Recycling Cost Calculation Committee and the calculation of contributions and subsidies

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s demand to organize the Recycling Cost Calculation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) is a mere recommendation without any legal basis. The Plaintiff actually organized the Committee in accordance with the Defendant’s corrective order. The Defendant considered its members and demanded correction again, and thereafter issued a corrective order to call up the Committee to determine the cost of recycling treatment and the unit price of the charges and to report it to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not violate the corrective order.

(B) Facts of recognition

① At around 2008, the Defendant sent the "measures to improve the operation of each recycling mutual aid association" to establish committees including external personnel for each mutual aid association, and ordered them to calculate the contributions and recycling subsidies objectively and rationally.

② On March 6, 2009, the Plaintiff reported that it would establish a committee to the Defendant. On September 4, 2009, the Plaintiff amended the articles of incorporation to include the above contents.

③ As the Plaintiff did not organize and operate a committee, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff to organize the committee four times from March 6, 2014 to May 27, 2014, and to revise the articles of incorporation accordingly.

④ The Plaintiff deemed that the commission was organized against the Defendant on June 3, 2014. However, on July 30, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to reconform the commission on the ground that the commission organized by the Plaintiff does not include a person related to the Korea Environment Corporation, and that related experts also directly nominate the president of the Association, which makes it difficult to realize the purpose of the improvement measures of the Mutual Aid Association.

⑤ On September 29, 2014, and September 10, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff to the effect that the Committee determines reasonable disposal costs and unit cost of a contribution, but the Plaintiff did not comply with such order.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each of the evidence as seen earlier, Gap evidence No. 18, Eul evidence No. 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

(C) Determination

Article 16(2) of the Resource Recycling Act provides that manufacturers obligated to recycle life-saving products (hereinafter referred to as “members”) who are the Plaintiff’s members shall pay to the Plaintiff contributions to jointly perform the obligation to recycle. The Plaintiff shall pay the so-called “recycling subsidy” to C, which is a recycling business entity that collects and disposes of wastes from the financial resources, and shall submit the recycling performance to the Defendant for approval of the performance of the mandatory recycling quantity. Meanwhile, Article 29 of the Resource Recycling Act provides that the standards for calculating contributions, payment procedures, and other necessary matters shall be in accordance with the articles of association of the association.

According to the above facts, the defendant's corrective order issued in relation to the failure of the plaintiff to organize and operate the committee in violation of the provisions of the articles of association is deemed legitimate. Although the plaintiff organized the committee on three occasions at the end of the corrective order, the committee was organized in violation of the defendant's guidelines in 2008, and the defendant was issued a corrective order ordering the reorganization from the defendant, but did not comply with this order, but did not comply with the corrective order to actually establish the committee and calculate the contributions and subsidies thereafter. It is reasonable to view the above series of plaintiff's actions as violating the defendant's corrective order regarding the organization and operation of the committee,

(5) Ultimately, for the year 2014, the Plaintiff did not correct at least three items, including the foregoing paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), even though having received a lawful corrective order at least eight times, as shown in attached Table 2, and this constitutes “cases where the Plaintiff has not received a corrective order at least three times for one year” under Article 28-5 subparag. 3 of the Resource Recycling Act and Article 23 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

C) Disposition of revocation of permission of this case

(1) Whether the conditions of permission for establishment were violated

(A) According to the terms and conditions of permission of this case, the conditions of permission of this case are as follows.

The rules and articles of incorporation on the establishment and supervision of non-profit corporations under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment shall be complied with, and matters concerning the guidance and supervision of the Ministry of Environment shall be implemented.

If it is deemed that a business (for-profit, etc. in the name of a corporation) other than the purpose of its establishment is carried on, violates the above conditions, is likely to undermine the public interest, or there is no capacity to implement the objectives of its establishment, the permission for its establishment shall

(B) Failure to carry out the Defendant’s guidance and supervision

① As seen earlier, the Plaintiff failed to comply with an eight-time corrective order that constitutes the Defendant’s guidance and supervision, as described in the foregoing sub-paragraph (b).

(2) The plaintiff's assertion regarding the request for removal of executives.

The plaintiff presented the above dismissal agenda by holding a board of directors immediately with respect to the defendant's request for dismissal B, but the agenda was rejected by opposing 5 votes and 1 votes. Since the defendant's dismissal request was a legitimate measure according to the reasonable judgment of the directors, such as occupational breach of trust, etc. of B pointed out by the defendant due to the reason for dismissal request, the defendant's dismissal request is not refused.

B. Facts of recognition

① On May 27, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff violated the statutes and the articles of incorporation and deemed improper operation of the Association on the following grounds, and demanded the Plaintiff to dismiss the president of the Association and relevant employees pursuant to Article 28-4(2) of the Resource Recycling Act.

The president of the ○ Association concluded a long-term monopoly agreement with C in a special relationship with the principal (from January 2006 to February 2020).

○ The president of the Association independently determines the unit price of recycling subsidy for C in violation of Article 40(2) of the Plaintiff’s articles of association and Article 17(3) of the Regulations on the Operation of Recycling Mutual Aid Associations.

The head of the ○ Association shall enter into a contract with a manufacturer of waste synthetic resin (representative of the president of the Association) in relation to the production of waste waste waste metal removal boxes in 2012 and shall pay a unit price higher than that of the same product as determined by the same product as well as the violation of Article 6 of the Regulations on Business of Association, such as the non-preparation

○ The president of the Association does not take measures, such as reporting to the board of directors under Article 18 of the Articles of Incorporation, the expulsion of members, etc. even though he/she became aware of the occurrence of 2.77 billion won due to a member’s death that did not fully pay the contributions in 2013.

The president of the ○ Association, in violation of Article 42 of the articles of incorporation, abused financial resources by paying a total of KRW 10 million to interested companies without documentary evidence in order to monitor P Co., Ltd., a recycling company, such as a new type of light in April 2012. The Plaintiff, after opening the board of directors on May 30, 2014, referred the “case of dismissal of the president of the Association” to the “case of dismissal of the president of the Association” as an agenda item, rejected the Plaintiff’s consent of 1, 5, and 1 (the president of the Association).

On June 3, 2014, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that the dismissal agenda was rejected by the board of directors and that it was no longer necessary to refer it to the general meeting.

② On August 8, 2014 and October 31, 2014, the Plaintiff, upon request from its members, refused to convene an extraordinary general meeting by replying to the effect that financial resources for the payment of dues would be prepared as soon as possible.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's entry of evidence Nos. 12, 13 and 22 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

Article 28-4 (2) of the Resource Recycling Act provides that if an executive or employee of a mutual aid association fails to comply with a corrective order, he/she may demand disciplinary action or dismissal against the executive or employee concerned, and that the plaintiff failed to comply with the defendant's corrective order, such demand for dismissal is legitimate.

Article 31(1) of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation provides for the dismissal of an officer as a resolution of the general meeting, but the matters to be referred to the general meeting under Article 37 shall be decided. However, even though the Plaintiff shall refer an agenda on dismissal to the general meeting, the Plaintiff referred an agenda on dismissal (not an agenda on whether to refer to the general meeting) to the board of directors as an agenda item, but rejected it, and as such, reported it to the Defendant (in case of non-compliance with the request for convening the general meeting of members),

Therefore, as seen above, the Plaintiff violated the Defendant’s duty of guidance and supervision, which is the condition of the instant permission, and thus constitutes grounds for revocation of the instant permission.

(C) According to Article 19 of the Resource Recycling Act, when the Plaintiff does not act on behalf of its members, the Defendant is required to impose and collect as recycling dues the amount calculated by adding a certain ratio to the expenses incurred in recycling wastes not recycled among the mandatory recycling quantity. In addition to the entire purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 24, 33, and 34, the Plaintiff’s imposition of recycling dues of KRW 72,00,000,000, KRW 2872,000,000, KRW 2872,000,000, and KRW 80,000,000,000 from the Defendant.

② In light of the following circumstances known by the facts and evidence as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s recycling business performance ability seems to be lacking. The Plaintiff is unable to properly extinguish the duty of recycling to the extent that the Plaintiff should bear excessive charges, and the Plaintiff’s financial situation significantly deteriorated due to the accumulation of charges (the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s excessive duty of recycling rate has been set, but it is difficult to recognize the above facts solely with the materials submitted, and as to the fact that the Plaintiff caused financial difficulties by failing to respond to the pertinent excessive duty of recycling rate.

In addition, it seems that there is no room for the plaintiff to conduct recycling business properly even if it is excluded, since the plaintiff has been engaged mainly in transactions with the company having a special relationship with the head of the association.

(2) An act detrimental to the public interest;

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

The withdrawal of a member from the Plaintiff is rather due to each of the dispositions of this case, rather than a voluntary selection. Since Q, an incorporated association established after each of the dispositions of this case (hereinafter referred to as "new mutual aid assistance") has no ability to carry out recycling business, it is now undermining public interest by failing to properly carry out recycling business such as waste mine, etc.

(B) Facts of recognition

① On August 18, 2014, R, S, and T, a member of the Plaintiff, filed a petition with the Suwon Police Station, which submitted to the Plaintiff, to the effect that: (a) the Plaintiff’s active operation would cause damage to the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff’s members would incur a greater damage due to the imposition of recycling dues of KRW 2.9 billion; and (c) the Plaintiff’s strict investigation was conducted.

② As of January 28, 2015, 26 companies from among the Plaintiff’s members (in the amount of 93.3% out of the Plaintiff’s members) withdrawn from the Plaintiff association and joined a new mutual aid association on the grounds of non-Transparency in the operation of the association.

(3) The new mutual aid association on January 30, 2015, which obtained permission for establishment of a non-profit corporation and authorization for establishment of a mutual aid association from the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 23 through 27, purport of the whole pleadings

(C) Determination

In light of the following circumstances known by adding up the purport of the entire arguments and facts as seen earlier, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have committed an act detrimental to the public interest.

① The Plaintiff rejected the Defendant’s repeated corrective orders, etc., thereby impairing the effectiveness of the Defendant’s supervisory authority, and undermining the unity and stability of recycling policies.

② The Plaintiff traded with a specially related company and set subsidies at will, and imposes the contribution on its members in a manner not stipulated in the articles of incorporation, and was imposed excessive recycling charges due to failure to fully perform the obligation to recycle as prescribed by statutes. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s members were at risk of causing financial damage.

③ The Plaintiff did not fully perform his/her obligation to recycle, and the local government and the burden of collection expenses were disputed with regard to the collection and recycling of waste minerals, etc., which appears to have failed to properly perform the duty to recover and recycle waste minerals, etc., which is likely to cause the environmental hazard such as pollution, due to neglecting waste minerals, etc.

(B) The Plaintiff’s member’s withdrawal from each of the dispositions of this case was revealed through the Plaintiff’s internal circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s operational status and details of recycling dues, and it appears to have withdrawn. This shows that the Plaintiff failed to perform its duties in a transparent manner with respect to its members.

D) Sub-committee

Therefore, there is a reason to cancel the permission and authorization of this case in accordance with Article 38 of the Civil Code and Article 28-5 of the Resource Recycling Act, and the plaintiff's assertion disputing it cannot be accepted.

(ii) the existence of grounds for revocation based on the reservation of withdrawal rights

A) The permission or authorization of this case is a beneficial administrative act, and its legal nature belongs to the discretionary act, and unless otherwise expressly prohibited provisions exist in relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, an additional condition, time limit, burden, etc. may be attached to achieve administrative purposes, and so long as its contents are possible, proportional principles and the principle of proportionality, and are in conformity with the principle of equality, and do not interfere with the essential effect of administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12837, Mar. 25, 2004). In light of the foregoing provisions, there is no express prohibition in relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as to the terms and conditions of the permission or authorization, and the contents of the conditions are possible, and they cannot be deemed to violate the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality, or to undermine the essential effect of the permission or authorization, and thus, they cannot be deemed to be illegal.

(D) The withdrawal of an administrative act is an administrative disposition that ex post facto extinguishs all or part of the validity of an administrative act that entirely takes effect upon meeting the lawful requirements, and the reason for withdrawal refers to a new administrative act that occurs after the establishment of the administrative act and that cannot maintain the validity of the administrative act. All of the reasons for the revocation of the permission or authorization of this case are generated only after the establishment of the Plaintiff becomes effective after the establishment of the Plaintiff. Thus, all of the above reasons are deemed to fall under the grounds for the revocation of the permission or authorization of this case. The above reasons for the revocation of the permission or authorization are all deemed to fall under the grounds for the revocation of the permission of this case, and even if the conditions were stated to the effect that the permission or authorization may be revoked without stating the reservation of the right to withdrawal, it is reasonable to view that the whole meaning of the above permission or authorization of this case was reserved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da6422, May 30, 2003).

C) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff did not observe the Defendant’s direction and supervision, and recognized that the Plaintiff did not have the ability to conduct the business, and committed an act detrimental to the public interest, it is deemed that the grounds for withdrawal have occurred by violating the conditions of the instant permission or authorization.

(iii) the revocation of the time limit required for the important public interest.

A) Even if there was no particular defect at the time of the disposition, and there was no separate legal ground to revoke it after the disposition, where there was no need to continue the original disposition, or where there was a change in circumstances, or where there was a need for the important public interest, it may be revoked by a separate administrative act which would lose its effect (see Supreme Court Decision 94-713, Feb. 28, 1995).

B) In full view of the circumstances as seen in the above 1-C(2)(c)(c) and (c), it is deemed that the Defendant was required to cancel the instant permission and authorization, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant permission and authorization can be revoked on the basis of such circumstance.

(c) deviation from and abuse of discretionary authority;

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff had already terminated the contract with the Plaintiff and C, and the term of office of the president of the Association B was expired on February 26, 2014, and was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on charges of occupational breach of trust against B, etc. The Plaintiff was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on charges of all charges other than minor matters. Since the new mutual aid association is unable to conduct recycling business, it is necessary to combine the new association with the Plaintiff and conduct business. Considering these circumstances, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff.

2) Determination

In full view of the circumstances that harm the public interest as seen earlier and the following circumstances revealed in light of the aforementioned evidence, even if considering the various circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition was a deviation from or abuse of the discretionary power assigned to the Defendant against the principle of proportionality.

① As seen earlier, the directors constituting the Plaintiff’s board of directors consisting of a considerable number of persons related to B. Even if this was left in the chapter of the Association or the Plaintiff terminated the contract with C, it is difficult to see that transparency and fairness in the operation of the Plaintiff was clearly ensured.

② Separate from the fact that the Plaintiff later made efforts to prevent recurrence, each of the dispositions of this case cannot be ruled out that the characteristics of sanctions against nonperformance, such as past duties, etc., are not limited, and preventive effects are also guaranteed when securing the effectiveness of sanctions.

③ The new mutual aid association has already been established and authorized, and the new mutual aid association has joined the 93.3% shipping volume. There is no ground to deem that the new mutual aid association is unable to conduct recycling business, and even if the new mutual aid association is somewhat lacking to deal with it, it does not seem to be a reason to revoke each of the dispositions of this case against the Plaintiff, separate from the issue to be improved later.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the Korean Judge;

Judges Kim Gin-young

Judges Sok-beon

1) The above corrective order is written on March 13, 2014, but it appears to be written in writing.