Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm New Cancer, Attorneys Lee Tae-o, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Jeonju Market (Attorney Kim Dong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

June 24, 2015

1. On October 22, 2013, the Defendant revoked the portion exceeding KRW 1,509,897,09, out of the imposition of the charges for the installation of waste disposal facilities of the Jeonju Innovation City Development Project on the Plaintiff on the grounds of the imposition of KRW 2,046,528,00 for the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

On October 22, 2013, the Defendant revoked the portion exceeding KRW 846,491,00, out of the imposition of KRW 2,046,528,00 of the charges for the installation of waste disposal facilities for the Jeonju Innovation Urban Development Project on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 전북개발공사와 공동으로 전주시 ◇◇동 및 ☆☆군 ▽▽면 ◎◎리, ◁◁리 일원 9,909,472㎡에서 전북전주완주 혁신도시 개발사업(이하 ‘이 사건 사업’이라 한다)을 시행하고 있는 사업시행자로, 폐기물처리시설 설치촉진 및 주변지역지원 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘법’이라 한다) 제6조 제1항 , 구 폐기물시설촉진법 시행령(2014. 2. 11. 대통령령 제25165호로 일부개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘시행령’이라 한다) 제4조 제2항 에 따라 이 사건 사업지구 내에 폐기물처리시설(소각시설, 음식물류폐기물처리시설)을 설치하는 대신 폐기물처리시설 설치비용 부담금을 납부하기로 하였다.

B. On October 22, 2013, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing a charge of KRW 2,046,528,000 for the expenses incurred in disposing of wastes generated in the Jeonju City pursuant to the Act, the Enforcement Decree, and the Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of Funds for the Plaintiff’s Waste Disposal Facilities (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and sought revocation of the instant disposition to the Jeollabuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 27, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is a defect as follows in the process of calculating the charges for installing waste disposal facilities, and the part exceeding the charges legally calculated among them shall be revoked as it is unlawful.

(a) Illegality in the calculation of land purchase costs

1) Nullity of the provisions of this case municipal ordinances

According to the Act and the Enforcement Decree, the cost of installing waste disposal facilities shall be fully identical to the cost actually incurred by the housing site developer in installing waste disposal facilities. Since the waste generated in the project district of this case is confirmed to be disposed of in the previous week ( Address 2 omitted) and in the incineration facilities and food waste disposal facilities (hereinafter “existing waste disposal facilities”) already installed in the previous week ( Address 1 omitted), the cost of purchasing the site shall be calculated based on the actual purchase cost of each corresponding site. However, this Ordinance does not distinguish whether the waste disposal facilities are installed in the project district concerned and whether the site for the construction has been determined, but provides that the cost of purchasing the site in this case shall be calculated in accordance with the calculation method of the site area as stipulated in the attached Table of this case, so the provisions of this Ordinance concerning the calculation of the cost of purchasing the site are null and void beyond the scope of delegation

2) Specific grounds for illegality

A) The illegality of the portion that applied the unit price of purchase of land per square meter as the taxi creation cost

The installation cost under the “Guidelines for Integrated Budget Support for Waste Disposal Facilities in 2013” applied by the Defendant to calculate the installation cost for the installation of a site is already included in the installation cost. However, if the housing site development cost is applied to the site purchase cost, the site development cost overlaps with the site purchase cost and the installation cost. On the other hand, waste generated from the project district in this case is determined to be disposed of at the existing waste disposal facilities located outside the project district in this case, the housing site development cost in the project district in this case cannot be applied as the site purchase cost, and the land purchase average unit price for the existing waste disposal facilities shall be applied to 79,374 won

B) the illegality in calculating the area of the incineration facility site

In determining the necessary site area per ton of incineration facilities, the Defendant applied the facility site area to 40 square meters per ton in accordance with the attached Table of this case on the premise that the incineration facilities with a daily disposal capacity of not more than 100 tons are to be installed at will. However, the Enforcement Decree and the Municipal Ordinance stipulate that the installation cost of facilities shall be calculated based on incineration facilities with a daily disposal capacity of not more than 200 tons, and there is no reason to view that the standards for the installation cost of facilities and the purchase cost of the site are different. Considering that the existing waste disposal facilities established as the incineration facilities of the instant business district are 400 tons of the daily disposal cost of the instant waste disposal facilities, the necessary site area of the incineration facilities of this case shall be calculated by applying 30 square meters per ton in accordance with

C) the illegality in calculating the area of other facilities such as the management Dong and the Sejong Deputy Director;

The Defendant included the site area of other facilities, such as the management Dong and Sejong Deputy, in the total site area of waste disposal facilities, and calculated the site area of other facilities, including the management Dong and Sejong Deputy, etc. of waste disposal facilities with a daily disposal capacity of not more than 500 tons under the instant ordinances as unconditional 330§³, respectively. However, if the daily waste volume is below the anticipated daily generation volume, it would be unfair that the proportion of other facilities, such as the management Dong and Sejong Deputy, etc., is excessively increased in the site area of the actual waste disposal facilities. In the case of incineration facilities, the instant Ordinance calculated each installation cost based on the daily disposal capacity of 200 tons in the case of the incineration facilities, based on the daily disposal capacity of 30 tons in the case of the food waste disposal facilities, and calculated each installation cost based on the scale of 30 tons in the daily disposal capacity of the waste disposal facilities. Accordingly, the area of other facilities, such as the management Dong and Jeon Deputy, converted on the basis thereof, shall be calculated by multiplying each 1.65§³/metric/metric area (30 tons/metric tons) and the daily waste area.

D) the illegality in calculating the site area of the resident convenience facility;

In calculating the site area of waste disposal facilities, the Defendant added the area of convenience facilities for residents equivalent to 10% of the site area of the waste disposal facilities pursuant to this Ordinance. However, the Act and the Enforcement Decree stipulate that the head of the local government, such as the Defendant, is obligated to install convenience facilities for residents in the area where waste disposal facilities are installed, and the Plaintiff, who is the project implementer, shall not be obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the cost of installation. Thus, the Defendant’s liability is unlawful

B. Illegality in calculating installation costs

1) Illegality of calculating unit cost for installation of facilities

The Defendant applied the standard unit price per ton of incineration facilities and food waste disposal facilities for the installation of waste disposal facilities under the “Guidelines for Integrated Budget Support for Waste Disposal Facilities of 2013” as prescribed by the Ministry of Environment. However, since waste generated in the instant project district was finally determined to be disposed of at the existing waste disposal facilities, the charges for waste disposal shall be calculated on the basis of the unit price for installation of the existing waste disposal facilities (281,078,000 won: incineration facilities, food waste disposal facilities: 24,967,00 won/metrics).

(ii) illegality in the application of the food waste disposal facility scale index

In calculating the installation cost of food waste disposal facilities, the Defendant applied the scale index 1.2 to the instant ordinances based on 6.75 tons of the estimated daily food waste quantity in the instant project district. However, since the Act or the Enforcement Decree does not stipulate that the scale index may be applied to the installation cost, it is invalid to allow the increase of installation cost by applying the scale index of the instant ordinances to the installation cost, which goes beyond the scope of delegation. Since the daily disposal cost of the existing waste disposal facility, which is finalized as food waste disposal facility in the instant project district, is 300 tons, the scale index may not be applied even under the instant ordinances.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Criteria for calculating the installation charges for waste disposal facilities under the Act, the Enforcement Decree, and the Ordinance of this case

Charges for installation of waste disposal facilities included in the main sentence = Costs for purchasing the site + Development cost per one square meter of the relevant housing site intended to develop costs for purchasing the site for installation 】 Area of land (the area of the site for facilities + the area of convenience facilities for residents corresponding to 10% of the area of the site for facilities + the area of the neighboring green belt area) 】 unit price per ton of expenses incurred in installing incineration facilities of 200 tons of the daily disposal capacity of the incineration facilities for installation costs of facilities x unit price for each ton of expenses incurred in installing compost and feed conversion facilities of the quantity of wastes anticipated to occur per day in the relevant housing site x the amount of daily waste disposal capacity of 30 tons of the quantity of wastes expected to be generated per day in the relevant

2) Details of the Defendant’s calculation of charges

(a) Land purchase cost: 1,027,211,250 won;

○ Facility site area

Table 1 located within the main sentence (1) The area of a site for a necessary waste disposal facility (metric/ton) (2) the quantity of waste expected to be generated per day (ton/day) (3) the area of other facilities such as a management Dong and a tea dong, etc. (1) The area of a total facility (2) (1) x (2) the area of a total facility (2) (3) the incineration facility 403.43 660 797.22. 40660 6

○ Total site area

The total area of the site for the attached incineration facilities included in the main sentence 797.2 ± building-to-land ratio ± 40% 】 the area for the convenience facilities for residents 】 1.1 x 2,192 m2 m2,192 m2 = the total facility area of the facility site for the disposal facilities for food wastes (to be rounded off; hereinafter the same shall apply) ± 930 x 40 m2,5

○ Land Purchase Cost

The total area of a housing site in the instant project district x 2,16,255 x 216,255 x 474,030,960 x 1,027,211,250 x 2,558 m2,58 m2,50 m2,000 m2,000 m2,550 m2,000 m216,255 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00

(b) Installation cost of facilities: 1,966,700,000 won;

(4) The unit cost of installation set forth in the guidelines for integrated processing of government subsidies for waste disposal facilities of 200,000 won for the disposal facilities of food waste disposal facilities of 6.75,000,00 won for the disposal facilities of 6.75, 200,000 won for the disposal facilities of food waste of 3.43,00,000,000 for total incineration facilities of 3.43,00,000,000 for the total incineration facilities of 3.43,00,000,000 for the volume of waste that is anticipated to have accrued per day (n/day) (2),00,000 for the installation of facilities* 2972,00,000,000 for the disposal facilities of 2013

C) The Plaintiff’s share: 2,046,528,000 won

(1,027,211,250 won + Installation cost of facilities + KRW 1,966,70,000) x

(number of population corresponding to the project implementation section of the plaintiff 12,339 / Number of population in the whole project section of this case 18,051)

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination of illegality in the calculation of land purchase cost

1) The validity of the instant Municipal Ordinance provisions

A) According to Article 6(1) of the Act, a project implementer shall pay an amount equivalent to expenses incurred in installing or installing a waste disposal facility directly or instead of such expenses to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the relevant area. Article 4(3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree classify such expenses into expenses incurred in purchasing a facility site and expenses incurred in installing a facility. Article 4(3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree delegates matters necessary for calculating the cost of purchasing a facility site to an ordinance without any separate criteria or restrictions. As such, the cost of installing a waste disposal facility to be borne by

Therefore, in cases where an administrative agency has already established a place where waste disposal facilities are installed on behalf of a project implementer at the time of calculating the installation cost of waste disposal facilities, it is reasonable to view that the provision that the installation cost of waste disposal facilities shall be calculated on the basis of the housing site development cost in the project district in this case and the site area in the attached Table is invalid as it goes beyond the scope of delegation by the Act and the Enforcement Decree.

B) Furthermore, in the instant case, since the place where waste disposal facilities are installed has already been already determined, it is reasonable to determine whether to calculate the installation cost pursuant to the instant ordinances in light of the health room and the following circumstances, the determination of the installation site is reasonable on the premise that “the case of newly installing facilities to treat wastes in the relevant housing site.” Even if waste disposal is conducted by using waste disposal facilities in a present other place, it cannot be deemed that the installation site of waste disposal facilities has been determined

(1) A person who intends to develop a housing site of not less than 30,00 square meters under Article 6 (1) and (2) of the Act, Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Articles 4 (1) and (2) of the same Decree, shall install waste disposal facilities to treat wastes generated from the housing site or pay the amount equivalent to the installation expenses to the Mayor, etc. having jurisdiction over the relevant area, and the Mayor, etc. shall use the amount received from the project implementer for the installation of waste disposal facilities to dispose of wastes generated from the relevant housing site. The main purpose of the provision is to secure financial resources for the installation of future waste disposal facilities with a view to

② Even if the Defendant is expected to dispose of wastes generated in the instant project district at an existing waste disposal facility, the possibility that the existing waste disposal capacity would be insufficient to dispose of wastes generated in the instant project district due to an increase in the volume of waste emissions or the lapse of the maximum working age.

(3) Article 4 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the amount to be paid may be used for the installation of waste disposal facilities, other than incineration facilities, landfill facilities, and compost and feed-making facilities, in order to treat wastes generated in the relevant area where it is deemed unnecessary to install incineration facilities or food waste disposal facilities already installed in the area under his/her jurisdiction. Thus, even in cases where waste disposal facilities already installed can be used, it is premised on the payment of the cost to install waste disposal facilities in principle

C) Therefore, in the instant case, even if it is anticipated to utilize existing waste disposal facilities already installed outside the project district as alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be calculated on the basis of the purchase cost of the relevant site because it is deemed that the place for installing the waste disposal facilities has been fixed, and the charges should be calculated on the basis of the expenses incurred in newly installing the waste disposal facilities in the future. As such, in the case where the site for installing the waste disposal facilities has not been determined, it shall be deemed that the calculation of the site purchase cost is unlawful in the specific part

2) The illegality of the portion that applied the unit price of purchase of land per square meter as the taxi developer

A) According to Article 2 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and Article 2 subparagraph 6 (g) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, where the site for installation of waste disposal facilities is not determined first, the site for construction refers to the site for housing construction and public facilities developed and supplied under the said Act. The site for public facilities includes land for installing waste disposal facilities. The above provisions are premised on the installation of waste disposal facilities in the relevant site developed and supplied by the project implementer. Article 7 of the Act provides that a person who intends to install waste disposal facilities accompanied by the housing site development project shall take measures to include a plan for securing the site for the relevant facility in advance in the plan for the development of the relevant housing site. Article 8 of the Act provides that a local government may collect different waste disposal expenses differently between the area where the waste disposal facilities are installed and other areas. ③ It is desirable to treat the relevant housing site in the relevant complex, and in principle, to install waste disposal facilities outside the housing site development project zone and other areas under the principle for the burden of the person and beneficiaries.

B) Next, considering the following circumstances as to whether the calculation of the unit price for the purchase of a site based on the site cost in the instant project district is legitimate, comprehensively taking account of the health room, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the provision that the instant ordinances apply the unit price for the purchase of a site based on the waste disposal facility as the site cost in the instant project district is merely merely a specification of the provisions of the law or the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree, and it is not unlawful as it goes beyond the scope of delegation of the upper law. As seen above, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the unit price for the purchase of a site based on the existing waste disposal facility should be calculated by considering the unit price for the purchase of a site as the unit price for the purchase of a site

(1) A housing site development project implementer shall pay expenses for the installation of waste disposal facilities in lieu of a direct installation of waste disposal facilities, and install waste disposal facilities at the price of the market, etc., among the expenses for the installation of waste disposal facilities, the expenses for the purchase of the site refers to all the expenses required by the mayor, etc. to purchase the site for the installation of waste disposal facilities. However, as seen above, land for the installation of infrastructure is included in the housing site under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, and according to Articles 18 (2) and 18-2 (1) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and Article 22 (1) [Attachment Table 3] of the Housing Site Development Promotion Guidelines, if the housing site development project implementer intends to supply the housing site, he/she shall publicly announce the cost for the construction of the housing site and supply the site at the price higher than the development cost

(2) Development cost items under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act include construction cost for site preparation, telecommunications construction cost, design cost, landscaping construction cost, etc. in addition to the cost of acquiring a site. In order for a site within a housing site to function properly, it is necessary to install incidental facilities, such as roads, telecommunications, waterworks, and sewerage, as well as site creation cost, and the same applies to cases where waste disposal facilities are installed in a housing site area. The construction cost, relocation cost, etc. are naturally included in the cost of waste disposal in cases where a project implementer intends to install waste disposal facilities in a housing site area

③ Even if the standard unit price for the installation cost under the instant work guidelines applied by the Defendant when calculating installation cost, includes civil engineering, electricity, and landscaping construction cost, the construction cost included in the construction cost for the relevant project district refers to the direct cost required for the development of the relevant project district. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the construction cost included in the construction cost for the installation of waste disposal facilities in a specific site overlaps with that for civil engineering, electricity, landscaping, and the construction cost for the housing site

(iii)the illegality in calculating the area of the incineration facility site;

Article 4(3) of the Enforcement Decree classify the installation cost of incineration facilities as site purchase cost and facility installation cost. In the case of facility installation cost, the specific method of calculating the cost per ton of the cost incurred in installing incineration facilities of 200 tons or more per day disposal capacity by the volume of wastes expected to have occurred per day. On the other hand, in the case of site purchase cost, it is delegated to the municipal ordinance without any separate standard or restriction to determine matters necessary for the calculation thereof. Therefore, in the case of site purchase cost, it is possible to calculate more flexibly considering the detailed situation of the relevant project district.

Therefore, in calculating the cost of purchasing a site for an incineration facility, the Defendant’s calculation of the daily disposal capacity of 200 tons is not necessarily required based on the facility. In the instant project district, the estimated disposal capacity of 3.43 tons per day is only 3.43 tons. As such, the Defendant anticipated the installation of a daily disposal capacity of 100 tons or less, and applying the site area to 40 square meters per ton pursuant to the instant ordinance is to reflect the site area of the incineration facility to be installed, and it is difficult to deem that there is any error in law, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(iv)the illegality in calculating the area of other facilities such as the management Dong and the Deputy Commissioner;

A) Even if the Act and the Enforcement Decree delegate specific criteria for the calculation of the cost of the purchase of the site for waste disposal facilities to the ordinances without any separate criteria or restrictions, in light of the purpose of Article 6 of the Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the cost of the purchase of the site should, in principle, be the same as the cost required by the Mayor, etc. to purchase the site for the installation of waste disposal facilities on behalf of the project implementer. Therefore, the area of the site, which forms the basis for calculating

B) As to the instant case, the attached Table of this Ordinance includes the area of other facilities, such as the management Dong and Sejongdong, in the area of the waste disposal facility, and the area is 30 square meters in each case and 500 square meters in each case, if the area is less than 500 square meters per day disposal capacity of the waste disposal facility, and 330 square meters in each case. However, in light of the following circumstances, in calculating the site area according to the following circumstances, if the Mayor, etc. calculates the site area on behalf of the project implementer, it is likely that the land purchase cost will be excessively increased compared to the actual cost required to purchase the site for the installation of the waste disposal facility on behalf of the project implementer. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the part concerning the calculation of the site area of the management Dong and Sejongdong, etc. in the attached Table of this Ordinance exceeds the scope delegated by the Act and the Enforcement Decree, and the Defendant’s calculation of the site purchase cost is unlawful.

① The instant Ordinance prescribes the necessary area per ton by classifying cases where daily disposal capacity does not exceed 100 tons, between 100 tons and 300 tons, between 300 tons and 500 tons, and the necessary area per ton exceeds 500 tons, and may be subdivided and reflected into the actual necessary area. On the other hand, in the case of other facilities, such as the management Dong and Sejong Vice General, the necessary area is divided into two cases only based on 500 tons of the daily disposal capacity of waste disposal facilities.

② As a result, it is likely that the area of the site of other facilities, such as the management Dong and the Deputy Director, in comparison with the area of the site of the waste disposal facility itself, may be calculated excessively. Even in the case of the instant waste disposal facility, the area of the facility itself is not more than 137.2 square meters in the case of incineration facilities (3.43 square meters in a daily waste quantity anticipated to occur x 40 square meters) and not more than 270 square meters in the case of food waste disposal facilities (6.75 square meters in a daily waste quantity anticipated to occur x 40 square meters), while the area of the site of other facilities, such as the management Dong and the Deputy Director, etc., are not more than 660 square meters in each of 660 square meters,

(3) It seems that the management dong and ancillary facilities to accommodate employees in operating waste disposal facilities are required to a certain extent. However, since the meaning of the facilities, such as the Sejong Deputy Commissioner, etc., as prescribed by this Municipal Ordinance, is unclear, it is impossible to predict the area of the site necessary for installation of the facilities to a certain extent. Meanwhile, the area of the management dong and other ancillary facilities shall not vary depending on the daily disposal capacity of waste disposal facilities, rather than depending on the number of employees and the method of operation.

C) Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion pointing out the illegality of calculating the area of other facilities, such as the management Dong and Sejong Deputy, etc., is with merit (However, in the case of incineration facilities, based on a daily disposal capacity of 200 tons, and based on a daily disposal capacity of 30 tons in the case of food waste disposal facilities, it is difficult to compute the area of other facilities, such as the management Dong and Sejong Deputy, etc., by multiplying the area of other facilities (i.e., incineration facilities: 1.65 square meters in the case of incineration facilities, and 11 square meters in the case of food waste disposal facilities) calculated on the basis of a daily disposal capacity of 30 tons in the case of incineration facilities, by the estimated amount of waste generated per day in the business district of this case. However, the above three points are problematic in the calculation method asserted by the plaintiff. However, it is difficult to compute the area of other facilities, including the area of incineration facilities and the area of other facilities, which are different from the area of the area of the site of the facilities in this case.

(v)the illegality in calculating the area of the facility site;

Article 2 and Article 20 of the Act, Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the Minister of Environment or the head of a local government, or the head of a local government, who intends to install and operate waste disposal facilities, imposes an obligation to install convenience facilities for local residents, such as sports facilities, only on an agency installing waste disposal facilities, by prescribing that the facility should be installed in consultation with the relevant waste disposal facility site or the support consultative body, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Therefore, the Plaintiff, other than an agency installing waste disposal facilities, has no obligation to install convenience facilities for residents. However, when calculating the site area of waste disposal facilities, it is problematic that the attached Table of this Ordinance stipulates that 10% of the site area of

However, if the cost of the installation of the residents' convenience facilities is not included in the cost of the installation of the waste disposal facilities to be paid by the operator of the housing site development project, the Mayor, etc., in principle, shall make efforts to install the waste disposal facilities on behalf of the project operator who is responsible for the installation of the waste disposal facilities, and it is contrary to the principle of equity and is contrary to the purpose of legislation of the above provisions.

Furthermore, in light of the above circumstances, if the Mayor, etc., who is an agency installing waste disposal facilities, installs waste disposal facilities on behalf of the project implementer except for cases where the Mayor, etc., who is an agency installing waste disposal facilities, installs waste disposal facilities on behalf of the project implementer, reduced the obligation to install the facilities for residents’ convenience, the purpose of the law, which imposes an obligation to install the facilities for the convenience of residents by imposing an obligation to install the facilities for the convenience of residents in addition to the waste disposal facilities when the Mayor, etc. installs waste disposal facilities on behalf of the project implementer or on behalf of the project implementer, is unreasonable.

Therefore, considering the fact that it is unreasonable to allow a market operator to install waste disposal facilities on its own account in addition to the installation of waste disposal facilities on its own account and all the circumstances such as the interests of neighboring residents, each provision of the law and the Enforcement Decree should be interpreted as being included in the installation of waste disposal facilities. ② It should be interpreted that the project operator directly installs waste disposal facilities (in ordinary cases, it is anticipated that the project operator who installs waste disposal facilities, which are a kind of facilities for the so-called hate facilities, individually with neighboring residents, should undergo consultation and compensation procedures) to treat wastes generated from the housing site, or that he/she grants the right of choice to pay to the

Therefore, even according to a certain interpretation in this case, the plaintiff was included in an agency installing the waste disposal facilities that is obligated to install the facilities for residents' convenience, or selected to pay the expenses for installing the waste disposal facilities that include the expenses for installing the facilities for the convenience of residents' convenience instead of directly installing the waste disposal facilities. Therefore, it is legitimate for the defendant to include the area of the facilities for

C. Determination on illegality in calculating installation costs

1) Illegality of calculating unit cost for installation of facilities

The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the premise that the place of the installation of waste disposal facilities in the instant project district has been confirmed as an existing waste disposal facility site. However, as seen above, in the instant case, the installation cost of new waste disposal facilities in the instant project district cannot be said to have been determined in the future, and the unit cost of the existing waste disposal facilities located outside the project district cannot be applied, and there is no reason to deem otherwise that the application of the unit cost of installation prescribed in the work guidelines in the instant project district would have increased compared to the actual installation cost. Therefore, the Plaintiff’

(ii) illegality in the application of the food waste disposal facility scale index

Article 4(3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act stipulates that expenses incurred in installing food waste disposal facilities shall be calculated by multiplying the unit price per ton of the expenses incurred in installing compost and feed-making facilities with a daily treatment capacity of 30 tons by the tonnage of the whole quantity of anticipated organic wastes generated per day, and delegates other specific matters to the municipal ordinances, and does not stipulate that the scale index may be applied.

However, in light of the labor force, capital, etc. that should be spent regularly in installing waste disposal facilities, the installation cost per ton is reduced and the installation cost per ton is increased as the date of small facilities. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that Article 6(3) of the Ordinance of this case allows the application of the scale index according to changes in the scale of the facility based on food waste disposal facilities of 30 tons a day disposal capacity, rather than setting a more aggravated standard than the Enforcement Decree.

Therefore, the application of the scale index 1.2 to the level of food waste disposal facilities according to the ordinance of this case, which is anticipated that food waste disposal facilities of a scale not exceeding 10 tons per day will be installed in the project district of this case where the daily amount of food waste is more than 6.75 tons, which is expected by the defendant, is merely for reflecting the installation costs of food waste disposal facilities to be installed actually, and it is difficult to find any error in law. As seen above, as long as the project of this case cannot be deemed that the site for the installation of waste disposal facilities was determined, the plaintiff's assertion that the application of the scale index

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the portion corresponding to the charges calculated by applying the site area of the other facilities, such as the management Dong and Sejong Deputy, etc., among the dispositions in this case, shall be illegal, and the charges for installing waste disposal facilities corresponding to the site area of other facilities, such as the above management Dong and Sejong Deputy, etc., shall be revoked, as long as there is no other evidence to determine the site area of the legitimate management Dong, etc., as seen above. Accordingly, the charges for installing waste disposal facilities, excluding the site area of other facilities, such as the management Dong and Sejong Deputy, etc., among the dispositions in this case, shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

○ Costs of installing waste disposal facilities calculated by excluding the site area of other facilities, such as management Dong and Sejong Deputy Director, etc.

(1) Land purchase cost for incineration facilities: 81,593,012 won.

Total site area of 377.3 square meters (i.e., 40 square meters/metric tons of the necessary site per ton x 3.43 tons of inflammable waste expected to occur per day ± 40% of the building-to-land ratio ± 1.1 square meters of the area for convenience facilities for residents x 216,255 won of the housing site development cost in

(2) Installation cost of incineration facilities: 94,700,000 won

The unit price for installation in accordance with the instant work guidelines for incineration facilities 290,000,000 won/metric tons x 3.43 tons of inflammable wastes anticipated to occur per day)

(3) Costs of purchasing a site for food waste disposal facilities: 160,569,338 won.

Total site area: 742.5 square meters/ton of a site area per ton x 6.75 tons of food wastes expected to occur per day ± 40 percent of building-to-land ratio x 1.1 square meters of convenience facilities for residents x 216,255 won of the housing site development cost in the project district of this case

(4) Installation costs of food waste disposal facilities: 972,00,000 won

The unit cost of installation under the guidelines for the performance of the duties of food waste disposal facilities in this case x 6.75 tons of food waste amount expected to occur per day x 1.2.2

(5) The portion to be borne by the plaintiff: 1,509,897,099 won

2,208,862,350 won (i.e., + ② + ② +4) ¡¿ (number of population corresponding to the implementation section of the Plaintiff 12,339 / Number of population in the entire project section of this case 18,051

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Chang-chul(Presiding Judge)