Whether the establishment of standards for the appropriateness of a business plan related to permission for waste disposal business belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency (affirmative), and whether the improper notification of a business plan or rejection of a business plan without a specific and reasonable reason constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority (affirmative)

Examining the structure or text of Acts and subordinate statutes related to permission for a waste disposal business, these provisions stipulate the minimum requirements for obtaining permission for a waste disposal business, but they have left room for discretion as to whether the business is appropriate because they fail to uniformly determine whether the business plan is appropriate or not. In such a case, the determination of the standards necessary for notifying the appropriateness of the business plan also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency. Thus, unless there are special circumstances where the established standards are objectively reasonable and reasonable, the administrative agency’s intent should be respected as far as possible, but the determination of the standards is not objectively reasonable or unreasonable, or where the established standards are deemed objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, or where the determination of the business plan is not based on the mere reason that it falls under the discretion of the administrative agency or the rejection of the business plan without any specific and reasonable reason, the administrative agency’s decision should not be respected, and in such a case, the disposition is unlawful as a disposition abusing discretion or deviating from the scope.

Articles 13 and 26 of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 6912 of May 29, 2003); Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 128 of August 17, 2002); Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13061 Decided February 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 785) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu21086 Decided April 28, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1531) Supreme Court Decision 200Du5319 Decided September 26, 200

Plaintiff

The head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Hong, Attorneys Ansan-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Slim Service Co., Ltd. and two others (Attorney O Byung-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu1907 delivered on December 4, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are borne by the defendant, and the costs of the intervention are borne by the defendant.

Examining the structure or text of Acts and subordinate statutes related to permission for waste treatment business, these provisions provide minimum requirements to obtain permission for waste treatment business, but they have left room for discretion as to the appropriateness of business because they fail to uniformly determine whether a business plan is appropriate or not. In such a case, determination of the standards necessary to notify the appropriateness of a business plan belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency. Thus, barring any special circumstance where the established standards are objectively and reasonably unreasonable or unreasonable, the administrative agency’s intent should be respected as far as possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu13061, Feb. 13, 1998; 97Nu21086, Apr. 28, 1998). However, if the established standards are objectively and reasonably unreasonable or are deemed unreasonable, or where the business plan is improper without presenting specific and reasonable grounds or the business plan is rejected without such determination, the administrative agency’s discretion should be respected or respected only on the ground that it belongs to the administrative agency’s discretion.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the defendant reviewed the plan to fully expand the waste disposal agency area within its jurisdiction from 2001 to 20 Dongs, and the plaintiff submitted the business plan to the defendant with all documents, such as the plan to collect and transport wastes subject to disposal in the business plan of this case to obtain permission for the waste disposal business, the defendant should, in determining the suitability of the business plan, analyze the quantity of domestic waste generated within its jurisdiction, the trends of change in the quantity of waste disposal by appropriate company, the existing agency and new company's capacity to dispose of wastes, the rate of operation of human resources and equipment possessed by the existing agency, etc. to allow new company's entry into the business, and consider whether it would be impossible to implement the responsible administration impossible, and establish objective and reasonable standards for new construction methods and procedures of new companies to determine the suitability of the business plan of this case, or at least establish new standards for new construction methods and procedures for new construction of the business plan of this case to prevent the plaintiff from being subject to removal from the business plan of this case without any objective and reasonable ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)