Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Jeong, Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm Samyang, Attorneys Song Tae-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Green Environment Countermeasure Committee and one other (Law Firm International Law Firm, Attorneys Formation System, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

May 23, 2014

Busan District Court Decision 2012Guhap6170 Decided October 10, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The supplementary intervenor shall bear the costs incurred by the participation in the appeal, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's notice of mediation decision No. 2012-454 of Busan Metropolitan City Notice No. 2012 on November 28, 2012 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is an institution that has established a total business area of 758,342 square meters and a reclamation area of 507,431 square meters in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant waste reclamation site”), and the Plaintiffs are residents who have continued to live in the surrounding area of the instant waste reclamation site since December 31, 201.

B. On September 18, 2001, the first agreement determined that “The determination of the impact on reclaimed land environs shall be determined by the Resident Support Council on the basis of the results of environmental impact assessment, on the basis of the following: (a) the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor’s establishment and operation of the instant waste landfill site and the creation and support of the Resident Support Fund (hereinafter “the first agreement”); and (b) Article 6 of the first agreement determined that “the determination of the impact on reclaimed land environs shall determine the area prior to the environmental impact as the surrounding area considering the direct and indirect impact of the residents in the surrounding area; and (c) the impact grade shall be determined by the Resident Support Council on the basis of the results of environmental impact assessment.”

C. In accordance with Article 17 of the Act on Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance, etc. to Their Environs (amended by Act No. 7169 of Feb. 9, 2004; hereinafter “Waste Promotion Act”) and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18514 of Aug. 10, 2004), the Defendant organized the Residents Support Council for the Residents Support of Busan Environment Park (hereinafter “Residents Support Council”) with the recommendation of the Green Industry Support Committee, etc. represented by the residents on Jan. 24, 2002, to determine the environmental impact right around the instant waste landfill and to support the residents of the surrounding environment impact area.

D. On August 8, 2003, the Defendant had expert members selected by the Resident Support Consultative Body prepare a report on environmental impact assessment, and collected the results, and determined and announced the affected area of the instant waste reclamation site (hereinafter “the first determination and notification”). At the same time, 13 villages including the villages to which the Plaintiffs belong are classified as “indirectly affected area”, which is an area where there is a concern for causing inconvenience to their lives due to aesthetic factors, such as mental damage that local residents may suffer due to the existence of reclaimed land in the relevant administrative district. After all, subsidies have been granted to the villages belonging to the affected area.

1. Name of waste disposal facilities and facility installation institution;

(a) Name of facilities: Busan Metropolitan City △△ Waste Reclamation Site;

(b) Facilities installation institution: Busan Metropolitan City;

2. Location, scale, and specifications of waste disposal facilities;

Not more than 10

3. Plan for commencement and completion of the waste disposal facility installation project.

(a) Date of commencement: November 1994;

B. Date of completion: December 2021

4. Period of operation of waste disposal facilities: From April 1, 1996 to the completion of reclamation.

5. Location, area, and period of designation of the affected neighboring area;

The area subject to direct impact by the designated period of the area subject to classification included in the main sentence shall be 5.57 m2 in the Jeonsan-dong, Jeonsan-dong, and 0.18 m2 in Gangseo-gu, the area subject to direct impact by the end of reclamation from the date of public notification to the

E. On February 21, 2012, the Resident Support Consultative Body held a meeting on February 21, 2012, decided to substitute an environmental impact assessment with a written review opinion of two experts, on the ground that “the indirect impactD area in the affected neighboring areas has a large number of surrounding environments and there is no serious aesthetic factors any more.”

바. 피고는 위 의결에 따라 전문가위원 2인의 검토의견서가 제출되자 2012. 5. 30. 부산광역시 고시 제2012-208호로 ◇◇, ☆☆, ▽▽, ◎◎, ◁◁, ▷▷, ♤♤, ◐◐, ♡♡마을 등 총 9개 마을에 대하여 ‘간접영향권D’에서 ‘환경영향없음’으로, ○○마을에 대하여 ‘간접영향권 A, B'에서 ’환경영향없음‘으로 각 변경하는 주변영향지역평가등급 조정을 하였고(위 고시에는 ▒▒마을이 ’산단편입 후 없어짐‘으로 기재되어 있으나, ▒▒마을은 산업단지에 편입되지 않고 행정구역개편으로 ’●●마을‘로 변경되었고 위 고시 당시 ’간접영향권D'에서 ‘환경영향없음’으로 평가등급이 조정된 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없는바, ●●마을까지 포함하면 주변영향지역평가등급이 조정된 마을은 총 11개 이다), 매립대상에 ‘정수슬러지, 하수슬러지’를 추가하였으며, 폐기물처리시설 설치사업의 준공예정일을 ‘당초 2021년 12월’에서 ‘2031년 12월’로 연장하는 취지의 조정결정고시(이하 ‘1차 조정결정고시’라고 한다)를 하였다.

G. The aforementioned 11 village residents, to which the plaintiffs who were rated as “environmentally affected,” were affiliated with the head of the Busan Metropolitan City Environmental Bureau responsible for the chairperson of the instant consultative body, and thus, there was any defect in the composition and operation of the consultative body. Accordingly, the director general of the environmental bureau excluded the above director general from the chairperson and newly constituted the consultative body on November 9, 2012, and held a meeting on February 21, 2012 and resolved the same contents as the result of the instant consultative body on February 21, 2012, and the defendant issued a public notice of the adjustment decision (hereinafter “public notice of adjustment decision of this case”) on November 28, 2012, under Article 2012-454 of the Busan Metropolitan City public notice of Busan Metropolitan City as of November 28, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 through 5 (including branch numbers in case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the application for intervention

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the aforementioned application for intervention is unlawful, with respect to the filing of the permission for intervention in order for the Intervenor to assist the Defendant in winning the case.

B. In order to intervene in a lawsuit in order to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case, there must be an interest in the outcome of the lawsuit in question. The term "interest" refers to a legal interest, not in fact, economic or emotional interest, and it refers to a case in which res judicata effect or executory power of the judgment in question is naturally obtained, or even if the judgment in question does not directly affect the judgment in question, it refers to a case in which the legal status of a person who intends to participate in a lawsuit is determined on the premise of the judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156 Decided April 26, 2007).

On the other hand, a non-corporate body has a collective organization, separate from the individual nature of a member, which can be the subject of rights and obligations. Where a non-corporate body has an organization with its own objective by establishing rules with its own objective and, based on this, has an organization with a decision-making body and a representative who is the executive body. A decision-making body or execution method of its affairs is carried out by the principle of majority majority, regardless of the organization's accession, withdrawal, etc., and where the organization has a method of representative, operation of a general assembly or board of directors, etc., composition of capital, management of property, or other important matters as an organization, it has the substance as a non-corporate body. The recognition of the capacity of a non-corporate entity under Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act is a non-corporate body or foundation, even if it has the substance as an association or foundation and performs social activities or transactions through its representative or manager, disputes arising therefrom are intended to be resolved in the name of such organization through litigation, and thus, the term "in this case," refers to an organization externally composed for a certain purpose.

C. Based on the above legal principles, the Green Industry Coordination Committee is deemed to have established a first agreement with the Defendant on September 18, 2001 that, as seen earlier, residents of the neighboring village around Green Mountain dong consisting of 55 members against the Defendant’s waste reclamation site development project, and entered into the first agreement with the Defendant on September 18, 2001, it received the Resident Support Fund, etc. based on the above agreement from the Defendant, and paid it to the village residents under its jurisdiction. Under the Waste Promotion Act, the Resident Support Consultative Committee is recognized that the organization of the institution representing the residents of the Green Industry Do and the method of operating the project for supporting the residents of the surrounding area, including the determination of the environmental impact right to the instant waste reclamation site and the establishment of the committee for supporting the residents of the surrounding area. Accordingly, it is difficult to view the residents Support Committee and the Green Industry Consultative Committee as a combination of many people with a specific purpose, and as long as it has decided the intent of combination and execution of the project for supporting the residents of the village improvement committee, it is not a legal entity.

Therefore, the application for participation by the Green Industry Support Committee and the Residents Support Council is legitimate.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The public notice of the instant conciliation decision shall be cancelled because it is unlawful or unreasonable as follows.

1) According to the first agreement between the defendant and the Greensan Countermeasure Committee, the former area was determined and announced as the surrounding area of environmental impact and the grade of impact was determined by the Resident Support Consultative Committee on the basis of the results of environmental impact assessment. Although there was no change of environmental impact, the notice of the instant conciliation decision made by the defendant without going through the deliberation and resolution of the Greensan Countermeasure Committee is contrary to the agreement in this case and the initial public notice, or against the trust of the plaintiffs.

2) The instant conciliation decision and public notice added a clean slurb and sewage sludge to the subject of the processing, and the 10 villages to which the Plaintiffs belong are excluded from the surrounding area and making it impossible to receive living allowances from the Defendant, and thus, constitutes an indive administrative act that infringes on the Plaintiffs’ environmental interests and property rights. Therefore, prior to holding a meeting of the residents support council at the prior stage, the agenda items should be disclosed to the residents and the public opinion should be collected. It is erroneous in the administrative procedure that a resolution was made without the above procedure in the instant consultative body. In addition, there is a defect in the resolution of the residents support consultative body, which was held by the Director General of the

3) Although the plaintiffs did not differ from the time they initially determined and publicly announced, through the Defendant’s arbitrary criteria, they could not receive subsidies continuously received by the plaintiffs by excluding the villages to which the plaintiffs belong in the indirect impact area. This is a deviation from and abuse of discretionary power and is extremely unfair.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be as stated.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Articles of incorporation of the Green Cross Committee and the details of the first, second, and third agreements concluded between the Green Cross Committee and the Defendant

A) The main contents of the articles of incorporation of the Green Cross Committee are as follows.

(1) The purpose of this Chapter 1 of the General Provisions is to monitor and supervise the eco-friendly function of the “green waste reclamation site and environmental-related facilities” in Chapter 2 of the table contained in the main text. ① to protect the civil petitions and various business measures with related agencies in the affected area, to protect the foundation and lives of residents properly, and to enjoy the right to pursue happiness of residents. ① to implement and promote various resident support projects consulted with the relevant agencies. ② to conduct pollution monitoring and research on the relevant facilities. ② to promote the projects and welfare projects for the settlement of residents. (3) The former members of the Village shall be entitled to participate in the planning and resolution of the general meeting with the consent of the majority of the members of the local community (hereinafter referred to as “the former members of the local council”) and the latter members of the local council. ② The latter members of the local council shall be entitled to participate in the planning and resolution of the former members of the local council (hereinafter referred to as “the former members of the local council”) with the consent of the majority of the members of the local council and the latter members of the local council.

B) The main contents of the first agreement concluded between the Green Cross Committee and the Defendant are as follows. The first agreement provides that “The re-consultation shall be conducted every five years to devise measures to support residents following changes in the current situation ( base date January 1, 2002) and may be supplemented from time to time when there are matters not included in this agreement or additional matters.”

1. Table 1. In order to minimize environmental damage around the reclamation site, food waste shall be prohibited from bringing in from 2003 to a thorough separation of industrial wastes including various heavy metals. 6. Determination of the impact around the reclamation site shall be determined and announced as an environmental impact surrounding area in consideration of the direct and indirect impacts of residents in the surrounding area, and the impact level shall be determined by the Resident Support Council based on the results of environmental impact assessment. 8. The reclamation period shall be 20 years in the next 20 years, including the remaining period of the existing reclamation site. 80 million won shall be subsidized each year for projects, etc. to improve the environment, improve income, and promote welfare of the surrounding areas of the reclamation site. 15. 16. Scholarships shall be added to KRW 200 million per annum to the Greensan Scholarship Scholarship Scholarship Scholarship Association, and shall be granted to residents who wish to establish and operate the relevant environmental enterprise.

C) On November 30, 2006, the Green Cross Committee made a second agreement with the Defendant on January 1, 2007, specifying the contents of the first agreement on the resident support project, such as subsidization of the cost of the residential environment improvement project, and thereby, signed the second agreement with the effect of the first agreement on January 1, 2007 (hereinafter “the second agreement”). The main contents distinct from the first agreement are as follows.

In the event that the Si of Article 7 (Installation of Additional Facilities) of the Table included in the main sentence of this Decree intends to install additional facilities, etc. in connection with the head of △△△ Reclamation, it shall be established in consultation with the Green Industry Countermeasures Committee in accordance with the relevant provisions, and the impact adjustment therefrom shall be necessary pursuant to the relevant provisions. Article 8 (Operation of and Support for Facilities for Screening and Treatment of Recycling Line) (1) Persons eligible for support for the flexible project shall be the Green Industry Countermeasures Committee, and the Defendant may lease the site and buildings free of charge. (2) Recycling goods to be treated at the flexible place of business shall be limited to those goods in consultation with the “△△△△△” and the “ Green Industry Countermeasures Committee”. The period of reclamation shall be extended from 10 years to 10 years to 31 December

D) On July 30, 2012, the Defendant entered into a third-party agreement (hereinafter “third-party agreement”) with the Green Industry Committee, which entered into force on January 1, 2012, to the effect that the second agreement will be repealed. The main contents are the same as, similar to, and similar to, the second agreement, and there is no indication as to the adjustment of the affected neighboring areas due to changes in environmental impact.

2) The background and consultation process of the proposal of the public notice of the instant conciliation decision

가) 당초 조정결정 고시 이후 녹산동 일대는 ♤♤과학산업단지, ♡♡·◁◁산업단지, 국제산업물류단지 등 조성사업이 계속 진행되어 이 사건 폐기물 매립장 부지경계선으로부터 2㎞ 내에 있던 주변영향지역에 속한 기존 마을들이 산업단지에 편입되어 없어지거나 축소되었고, 이와 달리 위 부지경계선을 기준으로 2㎞ 외곽지역에는 ♡♡ ■ 아파트, ◆◆아파트, ♤♤ ★★★★ 아파트 등이 준공되거나 준공을 앞두고 있어 수 천 세대의 신규 주민들이 유입되고 있는 상황이다.

B) In the situation where a new resident flows into the Republic of Korea, some countermeasures committee members focused on the chairperson of the Green Industry Countermeasures Committee deemed that the entire area of the Green Industrydong as an indirect impact area, such as the initial determination and public notice, and distributed resident support expenses, etc. on a village basis, they determined that the benefits of local residents directly affected by the instant waste reclamation site would be reduced, and that new residents would be involved in the decision-making of the Green Industry Countermeasures Committee as a community countermeasure committee member. Accordingly, the aforementioned countermeasures committee members held a village countermeasure committee and a social conference four times from June 21, 201 to December 22, 201 and maintained the benefits of the support of resident support expenses, etc. for the said area, but the amendment of the articles of association of the Green Industry Countermeasures Committee, stating that the status of the members of the Green Industry Countermeasures Committee as members of the Green Industry Countermeasures Committee was excluded, was suspended without finding certain agreed points due to the reflection of the existing countermeasures committee members.

C) Accordingly, Nonparty 1, a member of the Residents Support Council, determined that it is impossible to solve this problem through the amendment of its articles of association in the Green Cross Committee, which has a large number of countermeasures committee members belonging to the area subject to indirect impactD, and suggested on November 9, 2012 that “the class of the affected adjacent area should be adjusted only to an area within 2 km from the boundary line of a waste landfill site as stipulated in Article 17(3)2 of the Waste Promotion Act and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, excluding the area subject to indirect impactD” to the Resident Support Council on November 9, 2012.

On February 21, 2012, the Resident Support Consultative Body held a meeting on the above agenda, etc. to substitute the environmental impact investigation by two experts' review opinions, and decided to adjust the area of indirect impact like the above agenda.

D) After that, upon the submission of a written review opinion by two expert members according to the above resolution, the Defendant: (a) on May 30, 2012, issued a public notice of the first adjustment decision; (b) constituted a new residents support council based on the reflection of the said 11 village residents, to which the Plaintiffs belong; and (c) issued public notice of the instant mediation decision on November 28, 2012 after the meeting on November 9, 2012.

3) Meanwhile, the instant waste reclamation site was extended by December 31, 2031, and the reclamation period was extended by December 31, 2031, and the landfill facilities, gas production facilities, food waste resources recycling facilities, resource recycling centers, etc. were additionally installed around the reclamation site. The instant waste reclamation site was added to the purified sludge and sewage sludge from the existing domestic wastes.

[Reasons for Recognition] The evidence, Gap evidence No. 19, Eul evidence No. 28, Eul evidence No. 29, each of the evidence No. 28 and No. 29, non-party 2, 3, and 1 of the first instance trial witness, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 17(1) of the Waste Promotion Act provides that an agency installing waste disposal facilities shall determine and publicly announce the surrounding areas (hereinafter referred to as “ affected neighboring areas”) which may be affected environmentally due to the installation and operation of the waste disposal facilities within the period prescribed by Presidential Decree from the date the plan for installation of waste disposal facilities is publicly announced under Article 11-3. Article 17(2) of the same Act provides that where an agency installing waste disposal facilities intends to determine and publicly announce the affected areas pursuant to paragraph (1), it shall require a specialized research institution selected by the Resident Support Consultative Body organized pursuant to Article 17-2 to investigate the environmental impact and collect the results thereof: Provided, That where the Resident Support Consultative Body deems it unnecessary to investigate the environmental impact of the surrounding areas, it may omit the relevant investigation or substitute it with the written opinion of review by the relevant experts. Article 11(3) of the same Act provides that “The affected areas are directly affected by the relocation of local residents because they are anticipated to have an environmental impact directly on human and animal activities, agricultural products, forestry products, or fishery products, and that are included in the area or area within the scope of environmental impact.”

Furthermore, Article 17(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Waste Disposal Promotion Act provides that an agency installing waste disposal facilities shall determine and publicly notify the surrounding areas that are affected environmentally through the installation and operation of the relevant waste disposal facilities within two years from the date on which the plan for installing waste disposal facilities is publicly announced pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Act, and Article 20 of the Act provides that “the scope prescribed by Presidential Decree” in Article 17(3)2 of the Act means within two kilometers from the boundary of a site for waste disposal facilities or within 300 meters from the boundary of other waste disposal facilities.

2) In full view of the above facts and the following facts and circumstances known under the relevant laws and regulations, the notice of the instant conciliation decision is against the first agreement entered into between the residents and the Defendant including the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and its initial determination and public notice accordingly, and is unlawful as it violates the Plaintiffs’ trust.

A) The first agreement was reached on the condition that the Defendant prepared and implemented special measures to minimize the damage to the living environment of the residents of 27 villages in relation to the operation of the reclamation site and to construct the optimal reclaimed land thoroughly. The first agreement explicitly states that “The determination of the impact on the surrounding area of the reclamation site shall be determined in the surrounding area considering the direct and indirect impacts of the residents of the surrounding area by considering the direct and indirect impacts of the residents of the reclamation site, and the grade of such impact shall be determined by the Resident Support Council based on the results of the environmental impact assessment, and the period of reclamation shall be 20 years in the future until 2021, including the remaining period of the existing reclamation site.”

B) After that, the Defendant followed the procedures prescribed in Articles 17 and 20 of the Waste Promotion Act by having expert members selected by the Residents Support Consultative Body constituted a resident support consultative body and investigate environmental impact under the active cooperation of the Green Industry Countermeasure Committee, etc., and, as in the first agreement on August 8, 2003, the direct impact area around the instant waste reclamation site was “Gangseo-gu, △△△△△△, 0.18km of the Seodong-gu, 000,” the indirect impact area was “5.57 km of the area prior to the Green Industry, excluding the direct impact area,” and the period of designation was “from the date of the public announcement until the date of the reclamation completion.” Even if there was no environmental impact on the 13 villages including the villages to which the Plaintiffs belong, it was classified into “indirectly affected area” and was classified into “indirectly affected area” as “indirectly affected area.

C) Article 17(3) of the Waste Promotion Act provides that an area within two kilometers from the boundary line of a site where a waste landfill is located and is located within two kilometers from the boundary line of the site, which is anticipated to have an environmental impact on the environment as a result of an investigation of environmental impact, shall have an indirect impact on the area outside the boundary line of the site. However, in light of the first agreement and the circumstances leading up to the public notice of the initial adjustment decision, etc., it is legitimate that the Defendant determined and publicly notified the affected area by deeming the indirect impactD area as “where it is deemed particularly necessary” as stipulated in the proviso of Article 17(3) of the Waste Promotion Act and including it in the affected area as an indirect impact.

D) Meanwhile, in addition to the core points as seen earlier, the first agreement states that “the re-consultation shall be made every five years to take measures for supporting residents following changes in the age.” Based on this, the second agreement was concluded with the content of the first agreement, such as subsidization of expenses for residential environment improvement projects on November 30, 2006, and the reclamation period is extended from December 31, 2021 to December 31, 2031. The third agreement was concluded with the second agreement with the Defendant on July 30, 201, which included the contents of the first agreement and the second agreement with the residents on July 30, 201. However, the second agreement and the third agreement concluded after the first adjustment decision of the first agreement were announced, and there were no other descriptions about the affected neighboring areas closely related to the residents’ interests, and the details of the first agreement and the second agreement were still included in the draft agreement and the second agreement with the Broadcasting Committee, and the details of the first agreement and the second agreement with the competent adjustment committee, despite the initial agreement and the second agreement.

E) Some of the countermeasures committee members centering on the chairperson of the Green Industry Countermeasures Committee discussed the amendment of the articles of association to limit the voting rights of local countermeasure committee members with a large volume of the inflows of foreign residents, such as the incorporation of the daily price around the Green Industry into an industrial complex and the completion of large-scale apartment buildings, and thus, the introduction of the existing rights of the Green Industry Countermeasures Committee, but did not find any agreement points in fact, it seems that the decision of the instant adjustment was announced by a round-up method in the Resident Support Consultative Body rather than through the general assembly of the Green Industry Support Committee in order to propose and pass a resolution on the adjustment of the adjacent area of the △△△△ Waste Reclamation Center (indirect impact).

바) 피고의 주장처럼 녹산동 일대가 여러 산업단지 조성사업이 추진 중에 있고 ♤♤마을, ♡♡마을 등으로 대규모 아파트 단지가 준공을 하였거나 준공을 앞두고 있어 수 천 세대가 인구가 새로 유입되고 있는 사정은 인정되지만, 원고들이 속한 11개 마을 주민들 대부분은 당초 조정결정고시 이후에도 산업단지에 편입된 바 없이 같은 곳에서 거주하고 있는 점, 이 사건 폐기물 매립장의 매립기간이 2031. 12. 31.까지로 연장되었고, 매립장 주변으로 매립장가스발전시설, 음식물쓰레기자원화시설, 자원재활용센터 등이 추가적으로 설치되어 그 규모가 확대되었으며, 매립대상물이 기존의 생활폐기물에서 정수슬러지, 하수슬러지가 추가된 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고의 주장처럼 녹산동 주변 환경에 일부 변화가 있다는 사정만으로 이 사건 폐기물 매립장의 존재로 인해 원고들이 느끼는 심미적 영향이 크게 달라져 더 이상 존재하지 않는다고 보이지 않는다.

G) In general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the acts of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the object of trust to the individual, second, the administrative agency's trust that the statement of opinion is justifiable and there is no cause attributable to the individual. Third, the individual should have trusted and committed any act against the above statement of opinion. Fourth, the administrative agency's disposition against the above statement of opinion should result in infringing on the individual's interest in trust. When meeting these requirements, the administrative agency's disposition is illegal as an act contrary to the principle of the protection of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18380 delivered on September 12, 1997).

The Defendant prepared the first written agreement to resolve the group civil petition of the residents of the Dasan-dong, including the Plaintiffs opposing the installation of the instant waste reclamation site and to designate the area of the Ysan-dong as an indirect impact area in the idea of promoting the project smoothly, and based on this agreement, up to the time the first adjustment decision is made and then provided a certain amount of living allowances to the Green Cross Committee that represents the residents of the Ysan-dong area before the mediation decision of this case is announced. The above act of the Defendant is reasonable to deem that the administrative agency provided the other party with an administrative undertaking or a public opinion in relation to the administrative action. Even if such commitment does not have the same effect as a contract under private law, it is clear that the administrative action that goes beyond a simple expectation and is in contravention of the principle of administrative trust because it would result in infringing the interests of the plaintiffs who trusted it, thereby going against the principle of administrative trust.

H) On the contrary, the Defendant’s primary agreement and the initial adjustment decision cannot be evaluated as an administrative agency’s public opinion list. Furthermore, the disposition agency, who performed an administrative act, may withdraw this case’s situation where there was no particular defect at the time of the disposition, and there was no separate legal ground to withdraw it after the disposition, or where there was a need for a significant public interest, a separate administrative act which would lose its validity. In light of the above, 13 villages including the villages to which the Plaintiffs belong at the time of the initial adjustment decision, were classified as “an area with influenceD” in consideration of the core factors such as mental damages that may arise due to the existence of reclaimed land in the administrative district under its jurisdiction and continued to receive a certain amount of living subsidy for each individual within each village or village. In light of the fact that there was no need to obtain a certain amount of living subsidy for several years due to the instant adjustment decision or public notice, and that there was no change in the situation that there was no need for the Plaintiffs to cancel the existing administrative disposition to the committee to the extent that there was no more significant change in the interests of the new industrial complex.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion premised on the absence of any substantive defect in the notice of the instant conciliation decision is without merit (the remainder of the Plaintiff’s procedural defect or deviation or abuse of discretionary power is not further determined).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Park Jae-young (Presiding Judge)