2011Guhap27605 Revocation of Disposition of Permission for Incorporation

A An incorporated association

The Minister of Environment

B An incorporated association

January 12, 2012

February 9, 2012

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The defendant's disposition of permission to incorporate foundation against the defendant's intervenor on May 26, 2011 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 1, 1985, the Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation that has obtained permission from the former Ministry of Health and Welfare for incorporation, and has 22,700 members across the country as a non-profit corporation that runs business related to the environment of laundry business, etc. Around May 1, 1994, the Plaintiff received a report completion certificate from the Han River Environment Management Agency (amended by Act No. 4970 of Aug. 4, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes) under Article 24(2) of the former Wastes Control Act (refer to the attached Form 7), and carries out the disposal of wastes discharged from laundry operated by the Plaintiff as a joint waste discharger pursuant to Article 18(5) of the Wastes Control Act, Article 21(1)9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act, etc.

B. On May 26, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition to establish a legal entity against the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). The Defendant’s business objective is as follows (see evidence A 3).

The purpose of this Association is to minimize the occurrence of organic solvents generated during the appropriate storage, collection, and transportation of laundry wastes and to minimize the generation of laundry wastes and facilitate the control and recycling thereof, as well as to improve the social awareness of laundry and improve the autonomous capabilities of the Association, and to protect the environment to be left to descendants after the improvement and prevention of environmental pollution through various activities of improving and preventing environmental pollution caused by laundry.- Publication of publications on improvement and prevention of environmental pollution caused by projects and laundry related to improvement and prevention of environmental pollution - Publication of practical awareness for improvement and prevention of environmental pollution - Administrative support, technical support, education, supervision, supervision, and other incidental projects related to each subparagraph of laundry.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, 7 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Intervenor’s assertion

The Plaintiff, a third party, who is not the other party to the instant disposition, does not lose his status as a joint waste discharger under the Wastes Control Act due to the instant disposition against the Intervenor, and even if there is a possibility that the benefits that he has enjoyed as a joint waste discharger may decrease due to the said disposition, such benefits are merely de facto interests. Therefore, there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the instant disposition to the Plaintiff

B. Determination

(1) A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, is eligible to file an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the administrative disposition, where the interests protected by law are infringed by the pertinent administrative disposition. The legal interests referred to in this context refer to cases where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations, and in cases where general, indirect, and abstract interests of the general public are generated as a result of the protection of public interests, there are no legal interests protected by law (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 2006). When multiple persons who applied for a beneficial administrative disposition such as authorization and permission do not have to be subject to permission, etc. against one another due to mutual competition, a person who did not receive the disposition such as permission, etc., is not the other party to the disposition, but is entitled to sue seeking the revocation of the relevant disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du6272, Sept. 8, 1998).

(2) We examine the case where the Intervenor received the instant disposition from the Defendant, and the permission for incorporation of the Plaintiff is not revoked, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s status as a joint discharge agent under the Wastes Control Act as well as the Plaintiff’s joint discharge agent under the Wastes Control Act. In addition, even if the Plaintiff has enjoyed any benefit by treating wastes discharged from a laundry industrialized in the country in the position of a joint waste discharger under the Wastes Control Act, it is merely a de facto benefit, and even if such benefit is likely to be reduced due to the instant disposition, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s legal interest has been infringed. Accordingly, there is no benefit in filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the revocation of

(3) Therefore, the Intervenor’s assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the chief judge and the vice judge

decoration of Judge Merit;

Judges Kim Jae-soo