In a case where Gap corporation, which is engaged in waste plastic recycling business, requested Eul et al. to perform civil engineering works to create a new site for the construction of a building, filed a waste disposal report (recycling) with the head of the competent Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the ground that "non-ferrous metal manufacturing process or mineral scrap," which is industrial wastes, will be properly mixed with earth and sand and recycled and then recycled into the land, but the head of the Gun refused to accept the report on the ground that "the stability and suitability of the subject wastes cannot be confirmed because the harmful characteristics of the subject wastes, their melting characteristics, and materials for confirming the safety of the subject wastes are inappropriate," and rejected the report on the ground that it cannot be deemed that Gap submitted sufficient documents to verify whether the standards, methods, and matters to be observed of waste recycling are satisfied

A corporation, which is engaged in waste plastic recycling business, etc., requested B, etc. to perform civil engineering works to create a site for new building, and filed a waste disposal report with the head of the competent Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the site for the disposal of wastes (recycling), stating that “non-ferrous metal manufacturing process or mineral scrap” and “sulin”, which are industrial wastes, will be recycled as earth and sand, but the head of the Gun has refused to accept the report and rejected the report on the ground that the head of the competent Si/Gun requested twice to supplement the report on the reason that “it is impossible to confirm the stability and suitability of the subject wastes because it is not suitable for materials to confirm the characteristics

A person who intends to file a report on recycling of wastes pursuant to Article 46 (1) 1 of the Wastes Control Act shall attach documents confirming that the recycling of wastes subject to the report meets the recycling standards, methods, and matters to be observed as prescribed by Article 13-2 (1) and attached Table 4-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act, Article 14-3 and attached Table 5-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act [Attachment Table 5-3], and attached Table 5-4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act to the documents confirming that the recycling of wastes subject to the report meets the recycling standards, methods, and matters to be observed at the time of the submission of the report, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the documents attached to the report submitted by the head of the Gun are “documents confirming that the report is a waste disposal report,” and there is no other evidence to prove that the documents attached to the report meet the recycling standards, methods, or matters to be observed in good faith, and thus the above disposition was lawful.

Articles 13(1), 13-2(1) and (3), 25(1), and 46(1)1 of the Wastes Control Act, Article 7-2 [Attachment Table 4-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act, Article 14-3(1) [Attachment Table 5-3] and (5) [Attachment Table 5-4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act

Daesan Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Taesung, Attorneys Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Ulsan Metropolitan City Gun (Attorney Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 18, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition to return waste treatment (recycling) to the plaintiff on October 26, 2018 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that aims at waste plastic recycling business. On January 9, 2018, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 obtained a building permit from the Defendant for the construction of Class 1 and Class 2 neighborhood living facilities on the ground (hereinafter “instant land”). At that time, the Plaintiff was requested from Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 for the implementation of civil engineering works on the instant land for the creation of a site for the said new building site.

B. On August 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a waste disposal report (hereinafter referred to as the “instant report”) with the purport that, from September 15, 2018 to August 15, 2028, the Plaintiff properly combines 26,800 tons of “non-ferrous metal refining and manufacturing process scrap” and “surination”, a general waste, with soil and sand, for the instant land, to be recycled as embling materials of the instant land, and then submit a waste disposal report (hereinafter referred to as “recycling report”).

C. The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the first supplement on September 11, 2018, and the second supplement on October 8, 2018. The Plaintiff submitted each supplement to the Plaintiff.

D. On October 25, 2018, the Defendant rejected and rejected the instant report for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

1. Table 1. A statement contained in the main text of the Wastes Control Act 1. A request for the supplementation of materials to verify wastes (the target wastes, discharged companies, and volume of wastes) to be recycled as fill-up materials pursuant to Article 46 of the same Act was not submitted, but the material to verify the characteristics of wastes to be recycled and the characteristics of melting and stability pursuant to Article 13-2(1) of the same Act and Article 7-2 [Attachment Table 4-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is inappropriate, and the civil petitioner intends to submit the documents of the target wastes (the hazardous characteristics and melting characteristics, etc.) through the next report on the alteration after obtaining a report on waste disposal (recycling), but it is not appropriate as it does not fall under the subject of the report on the alteration under the relevant Acts.

Note 1) Paragraph 4

E. On November 8, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Ulsan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but the Ulsan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said administrative appeal on December 21, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 3 and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff can conclude a specific consignment contract with a waste discharger only after the instant report is accepted and the “certificate of report on waste disposal” is issued. Accordingly, it is impossible for the Plaintiff to provide information on hazards, etc. of individual wastes belonging to the non-ferrous metal refining process. Therefore, at the stage of the report on waste disposal, it is impossible to conclude an entrustment contract for waste disposal or provide information on individual wastes subject to recycling, etc., by specifying the type of waste and the type of recycling. The Plaintiff submitted the instant report by specifying the type of waste and the type of recycling, and the Plaintiff satisfied the requirement of “documents confirming that the instant report is a waste disposal report,” but the Defendant rejected the instant report at the time of requesting submission of materials that cannot be satisfied at the stage of the report on waste disposal. The instant disposition was unlawful as it deviates from

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 46(1)1 of the Wastes Control Act, Articles 66(1) and (2), and 67(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act, a person who intends to recycle wastes, such as animals and plants residues, shall only make a report with specific documents, such as documents verifying that the report is subject to recycling, a collection and transportation plan of wastes subject to recycling, a recycling usage or method description according to the type of recycling wastes, a statement on the installation of recycling facilities, a waste disposal plan generated in the process of recycling, a waste disposal plan, a construction owner and a landowner, etc. who directly uses wastes as embling materials, etc., and the Mayor/Do Governor, upon receipt of the above report, shall issue a report certificate to the reporter if the report is appropriate. Accordingly, the acceptance of the report should be deemed to constitute the so-called continuous act or discretionary act of recycling, and thus, the acceptance of the report should be limited to cases where the report is deemed necessary under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes and subordinate statutes to the extent that the report is not accepted.

2) Determination

A) Key issue of the instant case

Article 67(1)2(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act expressly states that a person who intends to report a waste treatment shall attach “documents confirming that the person is subject to reporting on waste treatment” to the report. In this case, the key issue of this case is whether the “documents confirming that the person is subject to reporting on waste treatment” should contain a certain degree of information on wastes subject to reporting. The Plaintiff asserts that it is sufficient to specify the type of waste and the type of recycling, and that the documents providing information on hazards, etc. of wastes need not be necessary and that it is impossible to secure such information at the reporting stage. On the contrary, the Defendant asserts to the purport that the instant disposition satisfies the requirements for the prevention and methods of contamination and the treatment of wastes prescribed in Article 13-2(1) of the Wastes Control Act, Article 7-2(1) [Attachment 4-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 13-2(3) of the Wastes Control Act, and Article 14-3(5) [Attachment 5-4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

B) Contents of “documents confirming that waste disposal report is subject to reporting”

The main text of Article 13(1) of the Wastes Control Act provides that “any person who intends to dispose of wastes shall comply with the standards and methods prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 13-2(1) provides that “Any person may recycle wastes if he/she does not violate any of the following subparagraphs.” In addition, Article 13-2(1)4 of the Wastes Control Act provides that “The matters prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be observed, such as removing or stabilizing harmful substances, such as heavy metals, so as not to cause harm to people or the environment in the process of using recycled products or raw materials,” thereby delegating the standards for stabilizing hazardous substances to Presidential Decree. Article 13-2(1)5 provides that “The Act delegates specific standards for recycling to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment by stipulating that “other standards for recycling prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment shall be observed” shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, and Article 13-2(3) of the same Act delegates to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment that “the standards and methods for the prevention and reduction of contamination necessary to observe the principles under each subparagraph of paragraph (1).”

Meanwhile, Article 25(1) of the Wastes Control Act provides that a person who intends to engage in the business of collecting, transporting, recycling, or disposing of wastes (hereinafter “waste treatment business”) shall obtain permission from the Minister of Environment or a Mayor/Do Governor depending on the type of wastes, and is exempt from the duty to obtain permission for the waste treatment business. Meanwhile, Article 46(1) of the Wastes Control Act provides that “a person who recycles wastes, such as animals and plants, etc., by a specific method prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment” ( Subparagraph 1), “a person who collects and transports wastes prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, such as disuse, scrap metal, etc., or recycles such wastes by the method prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, and a person who collects and transports wastes as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment ( Subparagraph 2), “a person who collects and transports wastes, such as waste treatment appliances, etc.,” and “waste treatment business operator shall be exempt from the duty to file a report on the type of “waste treatment business” and “waste treatment business” (Article 46).

Therefore, pursuant to Article 46(1)1 of the Wastes Control Act, where “a person prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, who recycles wastes, such as animals and plants residues, by means of using them as composts, etc. on his/her own farmland,” intends to report waste treatment, such “recycling” shall not only fall under the type of recycling prescribed in Article 66(2) and [Attachment Table 16] of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act pursuant to delegation of Article 46(1)1 of the Wastes Control Act, but shall be subject to a report on waste treatment only when the person satisfies the regulatory requirements under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Wastes Control Act, which provides for such type of recycling. In other words, a person who intends to report waste recycling pursuant to Article 46(1)1 of the Wastes Control Act, who intends to report waste recycling, such as documents confirming that the person is subject to reporting on waste treatment, is equipped with the Plaintiff’s standard and [Attachment Table 4-2] Article 13(1) and [Attachment 4-3] of the Enforcement Rule.

C) Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including evidence Nos. 7 and 8, alone, is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff satisfied the recycling standards, methods, and matters to be observed at the time of the submission of the instant report, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff submitted “documents confirming that the Plaintiff is subject to reporting on waste treatment”. Rather, in full view of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the statement and arguments, the following circumstances revealed as a whole, comprehensively taking into account: (a) it is difficult to confirm whether the documents attached to the instant report meet the recycling standards, methods, and matters to be observed; or (b) it is difficult to confirm whether the documents attached to the instant report meet the recycling standards, methods, and matters to be observed; and (c) even if the Plaintiff requested supplementation on two occasions, the instant disposition was made as it failed to submit sufficient documents from the Plaintiff; and (d)

(1) The Plaintiff submitted the instant report along with ① the draft of the consignment disposal contract (the type, quantity, disposal cost, contract period, and the date of conclusion of the contract) on the general waste of the place of business, which was prepared between the forest company (hereinafter “fireation”), ② the waste inspection report, which was the result of analyzing and evaluating sampling stored in the forest office, and the waste information and hazards information, hazardous material test report, ③ the consent of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and neighboring land owners on the raising of waste recycling, ④ the implementation plan for priority compliance.

(2) On-site investigations were conducted by public officials belonging to Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan-gun visiting the forest on September 11, 2018. As a result, ① Among the wastes generated from the forest’s establishment, the non-ferrous metal refining process is considerably different from 17,00 tons, which the Plaintiff reported to be secured and filled at the forest’s establishment as below 500 tons per annum; ② the above non-ferrous metal refining process process material occurs; ③ the waste inspection report attached to the instant report is the test report for “raw materials” rather than “waste”, and ④ there was no fact that the Plaintiff concluded a contract on waste disposal with the Plaintiff on a fixed basis.

(3) On September 11, 2018, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff on the consignment recycling of wastes; (2) the detailed data of “surination” among the wastes subject to recycling of the instant report; (3) the detailed data on the waste of 17,00t part of the instant report, other than 9,800 tons, to be supplied from the forest among the wastes subject to recycling; (4) the evidence on the waste inspection report regarding the inconsistency between the waste and the waste subject to recycling; (5) the business period of waste disposal (from September 15, 2018 to August 15, 2028) and the construction period of the instant building permit (from December 2017 to December 31, 2018) and submitted supplementary data to the owner of the instant land in conformity with the project plan to prevent the difference between the land subject to recycling and the adjacent area from being excavated; and (7) the plan to supplement the data on the excavation of land to be made to the owner of the instant land in conformity with the project plan.

The plaintiff, upon receipt of the certificate of report on waste disposal, shall enter into the waste disposal contract with the waste discharging company and the waste disposal company. ② The plaintiff shall exclude the 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's' from the 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' from the 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's'. ④ The plaintiff does not know the process of collecting samples collected from the 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ''

(4) On October 8, 2018, the Defendant again requested the Plaintiff to supplement the first (3) through (7) as well as the matters set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) as well as (2) the written consent of the right holder, such as the owner or landowner of the relevant land, who directly uses wastes as banking materials, and (2) the plan for the prevention of environmental pollution (in the event that any wastes subject to forest recycling are used as banking materials, malodor, etc.) and the submission of relevant materials on complementary matters (hereinafter “the second request”).

With respect to this, without submitting separate explanatory materials, the Plaintiff submitted only the opinion that “the Plaintiff shall obtain a certificate of report on waste disposal, enter into a contract with the second emission company, accompanied by name, receipt and inspection report (use toxicity, gold, gold, etc.) and submit a modified report to you along with the contract and the plan for securing the quantity, and if it is stable after obtaining the certificate of report on modification, it will select and carry out only the stable information.”

(5) Of the Defendant’s primary supplementary requirements, the Plaintiff appears to be able to verify the type, quantity, harmfulness characteristics, and stability of waste to be recycled by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 7-2 and [Attachment Table 4-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act. The Plaintiff submitted the instant report, including a plan to process and utilize the non-ferrous metal refining process or mineral scrap as 17,00t disposal from the forest as embling materials. However, as a result of on-site investigation conducted by public officials belonging to Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, it was difficult to believe the authenticity of such plan. Accordingly, it was confirmed that there was a circumstance to doubt whether the Plaintiff has harmful characteristics, ging characteristics, and stability suitable as embling materials discharged from the forest. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s content and documents attached to the instant report are sufficient to verify whether the Plaintiff intended to use any wastes as embling substitute materials, and whether the wastes are subject to recycling.

(6) Although the Defendant demanded supplementation twice to verify the substance of the Plaintiff’s waste to be recycled, the Plaintiff did not submit to the Defendant materials to estimate the substance of the Plaintiff’s waste to be recycled, despite the Defendant’s request for supplementation. The Plaintiff is unable to enter into a specific consignment contract with the waste discharger prior to issuance of the certificate of report on waste disposal, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that it cannot be provided with hazards and information. However, this is merely a practical or business task to be resolved prior to the filing of the report. The business operator who wishes to report waste disposal, at least the administrative agency that accepts the report at the time of the filing of the report, shall secure and recycle any waste with a certain route, and be able to provide materials to the extent that such waste satisfies the standards for recycling, such as hazardous characteristics, melting characteristics, and stability.

(7) The Defendant’s primary demand for supplementation (5), (7), (8) and (2) primarily demand for supplementation (2) appears to meet the standards and methods for preventing and reducing pollution by the type of wastes used as fill-up materials as set forth in Article 14-3 and [Attachment 5-4] and [Attachment 5-4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act, and whether the criteria and methods for recycling are met. The Plaintiff must provide a outline of data to resolve stability arising from the excavation and filling-up of the relevant land where the instant land is excavated and recycled as fill-up materials. These elements may be resolved by submitting data on the nature and quantity of wastes filled-up, and the harmful characteristics of the relevant wastes, the outflow characteristics, and stability of the groundwater. In spite of the Defendant’s repeated demand for supplementation, the Plaintiff did not submit all relevant data.

(8) Furthermore, according to the instant report in this case, there are considerable circumstances to suspect that the Plaintiff’s abuse of the reporting system is not evading the licensing system, such as the fact that the Plaintiff is a business operator operating the original waste disposal business, the period of the instant construction permit is approximately one year, and the Plaintiff’s period of the construction permit is about 10 years, and the amount of wastes used as fill-up materials is considerably high as 26,800 tons, and the instant land is likely to be filled-up through excavation works even though it is located in the lower part of the Korea-Japan branch, there are considerable concerns that the Plaintiff would not evade the licensing system. Accordingly, the Defendant appears to have tried to verify more closely whether the Plaintiff’s business intended to start-up is “waste disposal report”, and even if two supplementary demands were made twice to confirm, the Plaintiff did not substantially supplement any materials.

(9) Once the Plaintiff accepted the instant report, and asserts that the content of the report can be supplemented through the instant report and that it can be sufficiently controlled ex post facto. However, separate from the possibility of future supplementation or control, the Plaintiff must have the data capable of verifying that the instant report constitutes “waste disposal report” in the waste disposal report stage. If the focus on the waste disposal report system is not considered as such and it is placed only on the follow-up supplement or control, the propriety of the waste disposal under the reporting system can be very dangerous.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Gangnam-don (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) appears to be a clerical error in Paragraph 5.