207Guhap768 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Extension of Project Period

00.33

Attorney Kang Han-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Jeju Market

Attorney Lee Lee-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Go Il-soo et al.

April 30, 2008

June 4, 2008

1. On October 24, 2007, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a notice of conditional disposal of construction waste interim disposal business to the Plaintiff.

The disposition not to allow the extension of the business period shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Disposition of denying the extension of the business period mentioned in paragraph (1) shall be suspended until the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive;

It is confirmed that "a civil petition related to the project promotion plan shall be filed in advance with local residents, and after the civil petition is terminated, the application for the installation and permission of the facility shall be filed." It is confirmed that "a civil petition related to the project promotion plan shall be filed with a smooth agreement with the local residents on November 24, 2005, with conditional permission for the construction of the construction waste interim disposal plan against the plaintiff of the defendant."

1. Basic facts

(1) In order to promote a construction waste recycling business as a juristic person established for the purpose of recycling waste disposal business, etc., the Plaintiff shall submit a construction waste disposal business plan for 8,405 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the entire site of this case") to the North Jeju-do head of the Gun, in order to build a new construction waste disposal facility for the purpose of recycling waste as aggregate; 5,976 square meters of forest land (hereinafter referred to as 360-1 square meters of flowing water due to a change of land category) and 44-1 (the lot number changed to 360-2 of flowing water due to a change of land category) forest land; 5,925 square meters of forest land (hereinafter referred to as "the total site of this case"); 6,05 square meters of water supply facilities for the implementation of the construction waste disposal business plan; 4,000 square meters of the planned site of this case; 5,000 square meters of the planned site of this case shall be subject to prior approval for the installation of a housing treatment facility and installation of a grave.

B. On December 1, 2005, the Plaintiff established a more existing environment (hereinafter referred to as “a more existing environment”) that is a subsidiary company that will engage in the construction waste interim disposal business on December 1, 2005 after receiving the instant appropriate notice. On December 26, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased the entire site of this case, and submitted a plan to modify the construction waste disposal business to the head of North Jeju-do Gun to the effect that he would change the business entity into a more existing environment, and received the appropriate notice from the head of North Jeju-do Gun on June 5, 2006.

C. On April 21, 2006, the remaining environment entered into a contract for the production and supply of waste concrete dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping dyping on May 7, 2006. On August 31, 2006, under the condition that the defendant must implement the project in compliance with the implementation conditions of the appropriate notification of this case on August 31, 2006, the area of the entire site was changed to 7,300 myping dyping dyp.

D. However, when local residents continuously file a civil petition opposing the construction of a construction waste disposal plant, the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Audit Committee commenced an audit and inspection on March 7, 2007, and as a result, "the defendant did not examine whether the business plan was modified in accordance with the construction waste disposal standards and methods, etc., with respect to the business plan that the construction area was reduced (the construction area was reduced from 8,405m to 7,300m2) rather than the reasonable business plan that was notified when permission was granted on August 31, 2006, and the change of the form and quality as an ecosystem conservation zone was limited to less than 50% of the conflicting area, and it violated the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes by granting permission to the whole conflicting area, even if the change of the form and quality as an ecosystem conservation zone was limited to less than 50% of the conflicting area."

E. According to the above audit results, on March 5, 2007, the defendant notified the remaining environment that he will build an office after going through a construction report in accordance with due process. On March 13, 2007, the defendant sent a public notice to the effect that he will implement the project after implementing the procedure for modification of the business plan in accordance with the individual laws in relation to permission for conversion of mountainous district, and on April 5, 2007, the head of North Jeju-do issued a disposition to return the plan for modification of the construction waste disposal business, which was appropriate on June 5, 2006, on the ground that it is impossible to transfer the appropriate notification of the business plan.

F. Accordingly, on April 24, 2007, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a plan for the change of construction waste disposal business with the content of changing the site of a place of business from 8,405 square meters to 7,078 meters from the site of a place of business, and received an appropriate sight from the Defendant on June 2007. On July 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for the conversion of a site of 7,078 meters from the site of a place of business, and obtained permission for the conversion of the said plan from the Defendant on August 14, 2007 (the period of permission from August 20 to July 30, 2008).

G. After that, while the Plaintiff tried to carry out construction works for a waste treatment plant, but the petition filed by neighboring local residents continued, the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff on September 20, 2007 to promote construction works after resolving the civil petition through an agreement with local residents. On October 19, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for modification of permission for conversion of mountainous district to remove soil and sand generated at the cutting time of cutting the ground that the extension between the Plaintiff’s business periods was impossible, but the Defendant rejected the application for modification of permission on November 13, 2007.

H. On the other hand, the remaining environment tried to hold a briefing session for residents on five occasions from June 15, 2006 to August 28, 2006 in order to hear neighboring local residents opposing the construction of a construction waste disposal plant, but the local residents did not oppose the local residents. From September 2006, the local residents installed three container containers on the passage of the site of this case on the road of this case and interfere with the official intention by parking the truck alternateing alternately, and the Jeju District Court applied for a provisional disposition for the suspension of construction against the remaining environment. In addition, local residents interfered with the development of the land as farmland on the ground that some of the passage of the site of the place of business interfered with the passage of the land as farmland on the ground that some of the passage of the site of this case was private, and the plaintiff proposed that he would pack the land to the defendant, but the defendant did not permit the construction of the road on the ground that the civil petition of the local residents was not resolved.

I. On March 22, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the 800 square meters of neighboring land to secure water supply facilities, and tried to secure water sources by laying the water pipes underground on state-owned land, but the Defendant did not grant permission on the grounds of a petition filed by the neighboring residents.

(j) On October 207, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the time limit for application for construction waste interim disposal business to the Defendant (the Defendant became to perform the duties of North Jeju-do head according to the reorganization of administrative body) for the extension of the time limit for application for permission for construction waste interim disposal business for one year due to natural disasters or other unavoidable causes as stipulated in Article 12(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act (hereinafter the Enforcement Rule). However, on October 24, 2007, the Defendant applied for the extension of the time limit for application for permission for construction waste interim disposal business for one year. However, even if the Plaintiff did not actively endeavor to implement the business within the time limit for application for permission after the appropriate notification of this case, the Defendant failed to perform the construction work within the scope of No. 1 to No. 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act (the grounds for rejection of application for permission for the extension of the time limit, No. 2 of the time limit for application for permission for construction waste disposal).

2. Claims by the parties or relevant statutes;

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) A civil petition related to the implementation of a project plan is null and void as it does not have any legal basis for the establishment and permission of a facility after the civil petition is resolved in advance by a smooth agreement with local residents.

B) After the instant appropriate notification, a lot of time was owned in the process of putting up and supplementing administrative errors due to the Defendant’s statutory application and business accommodation; the site for the site was purchased; at least 70% was completed; three out of four graves located in the site for a site was moved to another place of business; the site was under consultation for raising an objection against the remaining one grave; the site was purchased at 800 square meters on neighboring land and completed the preparation for water supply facilities was completed; the construction of water supply facilities was completed; and the project promotion plan was actively promoted to promote the construction of water supply facilities at the place of business; and the project was tried to hold an explanatory meeting to seek understanding of local residents by promoting the project; however, the application for permission was not submitted within two years from the date the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for permission due to the Defendant’s implied same Article based on the Defendant’s implied obstruction of construction work and the instant subsidiary section, which constitutes a natural disaster or other unavoidable cause in violation of Article 12(4) of the Enforcement Rule.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) As a discretionary act, the Defendant, which is an administrative agency, is necessary and reasonable, may freely set up a father within the necessary and reasonable scope. Even if there is a defect in the father in the house of this case, such defect is not objectively significant and obvious, and thus, cannot be said to be null and void.

B) The Plaintiff did not resolve the civil petition of local residents pursuant to the subsidiary of the instant case, and did not actively promote the business even though there was a considerable period of 21 months after the instant notice was given.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above reasons do not constitute “a light that fails to observe the deadline for permission due to natural disasters, natural disasters, or other unavoidable causes” under Article 12(4) of the Enforcement Rule, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the claim for nullification confirmation of the father of this case

In discretionary action, additional clauses may be attached even if there is no legal basis for the pertinent appropriate notification. Thus, the issue of whether the pertinent proper notification belongs to discretionary action or which kind of act of discretionary action can not be uniformly defined, and it should be individually determined in accordance with the form, system, or language of the regulations that are the basis for the disposition of the pertinent case, and upon examining the structure or text of Article 21 of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule, the above provisions only provide the minimum requirements for the permission of waste disposal business, but do not stipulate all the detailed criteria. Thus, without uniformly determining the appropriateness of the business plan, it is reasonable to deem that the notification of the appropriateness of the instant business plan belongs to the discretionary action of the administrative agency.

Therefore, the defendant may add the burden to the subsidiary to the necessary extent, even if there is no basis in the law, in the case of the timely notification of the waste disposal business under the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Determination as to the revocation of the instant disposition

1) Failure to resolve civil petitions

Since the disposal of wastes generated from daily life and industrial activities is not only an essential infrastructure of each region, but also an important infrastructure, and its own contributions to the environment, the State or a local government is obligated to take measures against the residents in the surrounding area even if there is an objection to the occurrence of damage caused by waste disposal facilities, if such damage is anticipated to occur due to the occurrence of civil petitions by taking measures therefor, and to promote the installation of waste disposal facilities by providing active support to the residents in the surrounding area. Thus, the defendant is obligated to take necessary measures such as actively endeavoring to resolve civil petitions and actively establishing measures to prevent damage to the surrounding area if such damage is anticipated. Thus, it is reasonable that the plaintiff's efforts to prevent the installation of waste disposal facilities and to ensure the new installation of new waste disposal facilities are not reasonable and reasonable in light of the circumstances that the plaintiff's duty to inform the plaintiff of the appropriateness of the project in this case and to prevent the installation of waste disposal facilities in advance, and thus, it is not reasonable to accept the plaintiff's duty of reasonable and reasonable measures to ensure the installation of waste disposal facilities in advance.

Furthermore, in light of the following circumstances revealed in the facts as seen earlier, namely, the Defendant sufficiently examined the Plaintiff’s business plan related to the business permission, and then notified the Plaintiff of this case, and the Plaintiff was able to obtain a waste disposal business license by installing waste disposal facilities in trust with the Defendant’s measures, and the Defendant’s refusal of the extension of the business period for the instant appropriate notification, despite the Plaintiff’s opposition to the residents, is subject to the Plaintiff’s liability for the occurrence and resolution of civil petitions, and the Plaintiff’s disadvantage is significant in the situation where the Plaintiff has already invested enormous funds due to the disposition denying the extension of the business period for the instant appropriate notification.

(ii) the progress of the project;

As long as proper notification has already been made, the defendant who is the disposition agency shall be given the opportunity to implement the project through the extension of the deadline if there are reasonable grounds for the plaintiff's application for the extension of the deadline.

The plaintiff did not agree on one of the four grave sites located in the workplace, and did not secure water supply for preventing scattering dust, and the fact that the construction of the site was not completed is recognized as above. However, it is sufficient to determine whether the plaintiff performed the duty of relocation of graves or water supply as the execution condition at the time of the appropriate notification of the waste disposal business plan, i.e., whether the plaintiff performed the duty of relocation of graves located in the workplace as the implementation condition at the time of the proper notification of the waste disposal business plan, or whether the plaintiff performed the duty of relocation of graves or water supply supply. Thus, if the case is the same as this case, which is merely a mere determination of the extension of the due date at the time of the proper notification of the waste disposal business plan, it is not appropriate to consider the ground for non-permission as the ground for non-permission. After receiving the proper notification of the original high-priced level, it seems that the defendant's business lodging and non-operation and the neighboring residents' failure to perform the duty of removal of the existing land and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Freeboard (Presiding Judge)

Sponsoraging

Hadoral agents

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

【Act on the Promotion of Recycling Construction Wastes

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of this Act is to contribute not only to the efficient utilization of national resources, but also to the national economic development and the promotion of public welfare by facilitating the environmentally friendly disposal and recycling of construction wastes generated by construction works, etc.

Article 2 (Definitions) The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. The term “construction waste” means construction work falling under subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (hereinafter referred to as the “construction waste”);

At the construction site from the commencement to the completion of the construction work due to the commencement of the construction work;

Wastes with not less than five tons generated, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

2. The term "construction waste disposal business" means a collection and transportation business or interim construction waste disposal business;

4. The term "interim disposal business" means a business of separating, screening and crushing construction waste;

15. The term "construction waste disposal facilities" means a facility for the interim disposal of construction waste, which is a substitute for such a facility;

The term “facilities as prescribed by the Ordinance” means facilities as prescribed by the Ordinance.

Article 4 (Duties of State, Local Governments, etc.)

(1) The State and local governments shall dispose of construction waste in an environment-friendly manner and facilitate the recycling of construction waste.

(2) shall take necessary measures to ensure that such

(2) The State, local governments, and institutions that have made public investments or contributions shall implement policies under paragraph (1).

section 23.

Article 13 (Criteria, etc. for Disposal of Construction Waste)

(1) Any person who intends to collect, transport, store and perform interim disposal of construction waste shall be determined by Presidential Decree.

shall be subject to such standards and methods as may be required.

(2) Construction waste disposal business entities entrusted with construction waste disposal shall construct construction in excess of the permissible storage quantity.

Wastes shall not be kept in custody.

Article 21 (Permission, etc. for Construction Waste Disposal Business)

(1) Facilities, equipment, technical ability, capital (individual light) that meet the standards for permission for collection and transportation business and interim disposal business;

the amount of asset valuation; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the size of a site for a place of business, etc.

Detailed matters shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment.

(2) A person who intends to operate a construction waste disposal business shall do so, as determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment.

A water treatment business plan shall be submitted to the Mayor/Do Governor.

(3) A Mayor/Do Governor shall review a construction waste disposal business plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (2).

The construction waste disposal business plan shall be notified to the person who submitted the construction waste disposal plan.

(4) A person in receipt of the appropriate notification under paragraph (3) shall be equipped with facilities, equipment, and equipment under paragraph (1).

The Mayor/Do Governor shall obtain permission by preparing alcoholic ability, capital and other necessary matters.

In such cases, the Mayor/Do Governor shall attach necessary conditions in granting permission, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(2) If any of the following events occurs:

(5) The collector/operator who obtains permission pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (4) and the interim disposal business operator shall be a third person.

(b) to collect, transport, or intermediate disposal of construction waste using his/her name or trade name;

No person shall lend his/her permit to another person or lend his/her permit.

Enforcement Decree of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act

Article 14 (Conditions on Permission for Construction Waste Disposal Business) Pursuant to the latter part of Article 21 (4) of the Act, a City/Do branch office may attach the following matters to the conditions of permission in order to protect the surrounding environment and properly dispose of construction waste:

1. Measures necessary for the control of flying dust and noise;

2. Measures necessary to prevent the generation of abandoned wastes, such as compliance with the permissible storage quantity;

【Enforcement Regulations of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act

Article 12 (Permission, etc. for Construction Waste Disposal Business)

(3) A person who receives a proper notification of a business plan under Article 21 (3) of the Act shall be as shown in the attached Table 2.

facilities, equipment, capital, etc. under the Act and two years from the date of receipt of the appropriate notice of a business plan;

(6 months in the case of collection and transportation business) A new construction waste disposal business license in attached Form 11 within six months;

The written request shall be submitted to the Mayor/Do Governor along with the following documents:

1. Detailed statement of facilities and equipment;

2. A detailed statement of installation of treatment facilities, its drawings, and processing process drawings (excluding collection and transportation business);

3. The construction waste disposal process diagram (in cases of collection and transportation business, referring to a plan for collection and transportation);

4. Documents attesting the current status of technical capabilities and the qualifications thereof (excluding cases of collection and transportation business);

5. Evidential data on the quantity permitted for storage and the grounds for the calculation thereof (excluding cases of collection and transportation business);

6. Documents evidencing capital or property.

7. Documents proving the scale of a site for a place of business (excluding cases of collection and transportation business);

(4) The Mayor/Do Governor shall set the period referred to in paragraph (3) due to a natural disaster or other unavoidable causes.

In the case of a person who fails to file an application for permission within one year (in the case of collection and transportation business):

(6) The period may be extended only once within the limit of 6 months.

effect guidelines on construction waste disposal standards, methods, etc. (Rules of the Ministry of Environment No. 2006-277)

1. Objectives;

○ Transfer of Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act and Wastes Control Act to the volume;

Construction wastes, such as a report on a person discharging construction wastes in use, collection, transportation, storage, and disposal thereof;

Detailed matters necessary for the promotion of eco-friendly treatment and recycling;

the purpose.

Ⅲ Scope of application

○ Construction Waste Discharge Report

○ Construction Waste Disposal Business License-Related

○ Approval and Report on Installation of Construction Waste Disposal Facilities

V. Construction Waste Disposal Business License

4. Review of the project plan and appropriate notification (Article 21 of the Sound Insurance Act);

(h) Return of a business plan;

2) Inappropriate notification of the project plan

○ The provisions of Article 24 of the Newly Inserted by Act No. 1010, Feb. 21, 201>

(2) In the case of a disqualification

○ Cases in conflict with other laws (limited to cases in which installation of waste disposal facilities is restricted)

○ Review of the installation permission and reporting by the agency for installation of emission facilities

In case where permission or acceptance of report is not determined as a result;

崇 법령 등에 근거하지 아니하고 단순히 폐기물처리시설 설치반대 등 민원을 이유

the notification of return or improper information is not the end.