In a lawsuit disputing the validity of a decision on and public notice of the location of a waste disposal facility installation plan to install waste disposal facilities with a daily treatment capacity of at least 100 tons, standing to sue of neighboring

Even if a third party is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, if the legal interests protected by the administrative disposition are infringed, it shall be eligible to file a suit for cancellation, and the legal interests in this context refer to cases where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations, and the interests protected by the laws and regulations on the basis of the disposition in question. The Environmental Impact Assessment Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Environmental Impact Assessment Act"), the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the former Act on the Promotion of Establishment of Waste Disposal Facilities and Support for Adjacent Areas Act (amended by Act No. 7169 of Feb. 9, 2004; hereinafter referred to as the "Waste Promotion Act"), and the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act, respectively, provide that if a waste disposal facility installer installs waste disposal facilities with a daily disposal capacity of at least 100 tons, it constitutes an environmental impact assessment subject to an environmental impact assessment under the Waste Impact Assessment Act as well as an environmental impact assessment subject matter under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act. Accordingly, if there are interests protected by the above laws and regulations on the location of disposal.

Articles 9, 10, and 17 of the former Act on Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Support for Adjacent Areas (amended by Act No. 7169 of Feb. 9, 2004); Articles 17 and 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Support for Adjacent Areas; Article 4 of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc.; Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc.; Article

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and seven others (Attorney Jeong-nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Port Market (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2004Nu1255 delivered on November 5, 2004

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant decided and publicly announced the location of the site for the waste incineration facilities (e.g., incineration capacity: 200t/day x 1) on September 8, 2003 and on two parcels of land, the defendant did not determine and publicly notify the affected adjacent areas as stipulated in Article 17 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Support for Adjacent Areas (amended by Act No. 7169 of Feb. 9, 2004; hereinafter referred to as the "Waste Promotion Act"), and the plaintiffs were residents within the area outside 300 meters of the boundary of the site of the scheduled site of incineration facilities, and the plaintiffs were unable to recognize that the plaintiffs' residential area was affected by the above residential incineration facilities construction project, or there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's standing to sue was unlawful, on the premise that there is a legal interest to seek the cancellation of the pertinent administrative disposition.

2. A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, is eligible to file a revocation lawsuit where the interests protected by the law are infringed by the administrative disposition, and the legal interests here refer to cases where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the laws and regulations based on the relevant disposition and the relevant laws and regulations. According to each relevant provision of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Environmental Impact Assessment Act"), the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Waste Promotion Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a waste disposal facility installation institution installs waste disposal facilities with a daily disposal capacity of at least 100 tons, it is not only subject to an environmental impact assessment under the Waste Promotion Act, but also subject to an environmental impact assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, as well as the relevant laws and regulations, and thus, the Environmental Impact Assessment Act is based on the determination and public notice of the location of the waste disposal facility installation plan for the installation of the above waste disposal facilities. Accordingly, a standing to sue can be asserted if there are legal interests protected by the Environmental Impact Assessment Act or the Waste Promotion Act.

However, according to the records, since the plaintiffs are residents living in the area subject to the environmental impact assessment in the court below, they submit the draft of the environmental impact assessment report (Evidence No. 9-1 and No. 2) prepared pursuant to the above Act by asserting that they have standing to sue to seek revocation of the disposition of this case under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act other than the Waste Assessment Act. Thus, the court below should have determined whether they have standing to sue under the above Environmental Impact Assessment Act, without any determination on this point, and judged only whether they have standing to sue under the Waste Assessment Act based on the draft of the environmental impact assessment report. The court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation or omission of judgment, which affected the conclusion of

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)