logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.01.10 2016고단153
폐기물관리법위반
Text

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged

(a) No person who has obtained permission, approval, or reporting pursuant to the Waste Management Act shall reclaim wastes in any place other than waste disposal facilities;

The Defendant received a request from G Co., Ltd. to remove a building from G Co., Ltd. as a site manager of B Co., Ltd. operating a building demolition business, etc., and the Defendant is called “instant site” between the end of December 2010 and the end of January 201, 1 and J (hereinafter “instant site”).

The above-mentioned 47 Dong and 49 Dong bill of indictment are "48 Dong", but this seems to be a clerical error.

The building of the research institute is referred to as "the building of this case".

The removal construction work for A shall be performed and thereafter waste equivalent to approximately KRW 7,294 tons of waste concrete, waste bricks, waste soil and stone, etc. generated in the course of the construction work (hereinafter referred to as “the waste of this case”).

B The land was reclaimed on the site without going through the procedures such as shipping it out through the waste disposal company.

Accordingly, the Defendant buried industrial wastes at a place other than a waste disposal facility permitted, approved, or reported.

B. Defendant B, who is an enterprise operating the business of removing buildings, etc., committed a landfill violation of commercial wastes at a place other than the waste disposal facilities permitted or approved or reported, as described in paragraph (a) at the site of the construction site for the removal of buildings and research institutes located in H G in the city of Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City of the Defendant’s employees.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants and their defense counsel asserted that Defendant A did not reclaim commercial wastes on the instant site as stated in the facts charged.

B. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court.

1) G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) establishes the instant site for real estate development around December 2008.

arrow