[1] The meaning of "public facilities installed by a person who is not an administrative agency" under Article 20 (1) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory with permission from the administrative agency concerned, and whether the facilities installed with permission from the administrative agency concerned are included in the above public facilities where the related Acts and subordinate statutes provide that an individual shall obtain permission from the administrative agency for a specific business for profit

[2] The case holding that the waste disposal facilities installed with permission under the Wastes Control Act in order to carry on the waste disposal business do not constitute "public facilities to be installed with permission from the administrative agencies concerned" under Article 20 (1) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

[3] Requirements for the application of the principle of trust protection to administrative agencies' acts

[1] The term "public facilities to be installed by a person who is not an administrative agency" under Article 20 (1) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002) shall be deemed only where the administrative agency grants permission for the establishment of public facilities to a person who is not an administrative agency (for example, where a public corporation is established and established, or a person who is not an administrative agency is designated and installed as an executor in case of establishing a urban planning project). In relation that an individual requires permission from an administrative agency in carrying out a specific business for profit-making purposes, the facilities are installed with permission from the administrative agency under Article 21 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 17816 of Dec. 26, 2002).

[2] The case holding that the waste disposal facilities installed with permission under the Wastes Control Act in order to operate the waste disposal business do not fall under the "public facilities to be installed by a person who is not an administrative agency" under Article 20 (1) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4

[3] In general administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to an act of an administrative agency, ① the administrative agency must name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to an individual, ② the administrative agency’s trust in the statement of opinion is not attributable to the individual; ③ the individual should have trusted and trusted the statement of opinion; ④ the administrative agency’s disposition contrary to the above statement of opinion should cause an infringement on the individual’s trust in the name of opinion; ④ the administrative agency’s disposition contrary to the above statement of opinion should cause an infringement on the individual’s interest. Thus, any administrative disposition is against the principle of the protection of trust unless it is likely to seriously undermine the public interest or a third party’s legitimate interest.

[1] Articles 1, 1-2, and 20(1) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002), Article 21(2)5 of the former Enforcement Decree on the Management and Utilization of the National Territory (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 17816 of Dec. 26, 2002) / [2] Articles 1, 1-2, and 20(1) of the former Act on the Management and Utilization of the National Territory (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002), Article 21(2)5 of the former Enforcement Decree on the Management and Utilization of the National Territory (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 17816 of Dec. 26, 2002), Articles 2, 4, and 26 of the Wastes Control Act / [General]

[3] Supreme Court Decision 98Du4061 delivered on May 8, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 164), Supreme Court Decision 98Du19070 delivered on March 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 684) Supreme Court Decision 99Du1052 delivered on May 25, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1301), Supreme Court Decision 2000Du8684 Delivered on September 28, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2371), Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7251 Delivered on November 9, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 57) (Gong201201Sang, 2051 delivered on November 8, 2002)

Bosung Industrial Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Hemb City (Attorney Jeong-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2001Gu1391 delivered on August 31, 2001

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The lower judgment is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition of improper notification of a waste disposal business modification plan against the Plaintiff on March 9, 2001 is revoked.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. On August 19, 1995, the Plaintiff received a proper notification from the Defendant on the waste disposal business regarding the area of 872-1 and 26,246 square meters in Bocheon-do, Bocheon-si, the Plaintiff installed waste disposal facilities at 11,00 square meters among them. On October 14, 1996, the Plaintiff obtained a final waste disposal business license from the Defendant on April 22, 1998, and operated the business after obtaining a revised license from the Defendant to extend the area of 11,00 square meters from 11,246 square meters to 26,246 square meters. On February 9, 2001, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a proper notification on the change of the waste disposal business (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. Accordingly, on March 9, 2001, the Defendant prepared a plan on the change of waste disposal business plan for the expansion of the Plaintiff’s waste disposal facilities to a quasi-agricultural and forest area, on the premise that the plan for the change of waste disposal business plan for the expansion of the landfill area of the Plaintiff’s waste disposal facilities is to be changed to a quasi-agricultural and forest area. In formulating a change of the plan for utilization of the national territory, the Defendant made public notice in advance in daily newspapers, etc. in accordance with Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and made it possible to take measures to the submitted opinion in advance. Considering the difficulties raised in the process of review for drafting, it is impossible to modify the plan for utilization of the national territory. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s review of the appropriateness of the plan for the change of waste disposal business plan under the premise of

[o] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1 to 10, Eul evidence 1-2, and the whole purport of oral argument

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

A. Although the Plaintiff is a profit-making corporation, it is not subject to the restrictions under the provisions of Article 20(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 21(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (public facilities to be installed by a non-administrative agency after obtaining permission from the relevant administrative agency) and Article 15(1)4 of the same Act. Thus, even if waste disposal facilities with a site area exceeding 30,000 square meters are installed in quasi-agricultural and forestry area, it is not subject to the provisions of Article 14(1)3 through 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act that limits these acts, and there is no need to prior to the procedure for modifying the plan for utilization of the national territory that changes the

B. Of the contents that the Defendant expressed as ‘dist' among the contents that the instant disposition causes, the expression is ambiguous so that it is impossible for the Plaintiff to find out why it would not be able to modify the national land use plan. This is contrary to the provisions of Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act, which states that the grounds for the disposition and legal grounds should be clearly stated, and it also deviates from and abused discretion.

C. On April 28, 1997, the Defendant had expressed his opinion that the designation and public announcement of a conservation forest within the jurisdiction of Bocheon-si was made with the intent of the Plaintiff to install a waste disposal facility on the land outside 98-1 and 68,520 square meters of Bocheon-gu, Bocheon-si, Yan-si, and that the Plaintiff would have designated the above forest as a quasi-contained forest. The Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s objection, and designated the above land as a quasi-contained forest on May 26, 1997, and the above land was designated as a quasi-contained forest. The Plaintiff installed an access road by predicting additional installation of waste disposal facilities, including part of the above land, and prepared for the construction of the instant waste disposal facility by acquiring a right to use, such as purchase or lease of the surrounding land. The Defendant could not install the waste disposal facility in the above forest, contrary to the opinion expressed above.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s first assertion.

(1) The purpose of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is to stipulate matters necessary for the formulation and determination of a plan for the utilization of the national territory, regulation of land transactions, coordination of land use, etc. (Article 1). The basic ideology of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is to promote the preservation of a healthy living environment and the balanced development of the national territory by having public welfare take precedence over the utilization of the land which is a common basis, preserving the natural environment, and properly traded the land in full consideration of regional conditions (Article 1-2). In accordance with this purport of the Act, the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory restricts various land use activities in accordance with each specific use area, and there are cases where the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory prescribes that such restrictions shall not be imposed only in exceptional cases, and one of them is the public facilities as prescribed in Article 20(1) of the same

(ii)The exceptional permit of the acts generally restricted in the above provisions is due to the very strong public welfare character. In light of this purport of the Act, a person other than an administrative agency referred to in Article 20, Paragraph 1, Article 20 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory refers only to a case where the administrative agency permits a person who is not an administrative agency to install public facilities to be installed with the permission from the administrative agency concerned (e.g., a case where a public corporation is to be established and established, or a person who is not an administrative agency is to be designated as an executor in establishing a urban planning project). As in the case of this case, a facility installed with the permission of an administrative agency to conduct a particular business for profit-making purposes with the permission of the administrative agency, even if it is a facility defined in Article 21, Paragraph 2, Article 20, Paragraph 1, of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which is not a public facility installed with the permission from the administrative agency concerned.

(3) Accordingly, the waste disposal facilities of this case to be installed by the plaintiff are merely to be installed with the permission under the Wastes Control Act in order to operate the waste disposal business, and it does not constitute public facilities falling under Article 20(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 21(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (public facilities to be installed by a non-administrative agency with the permission from the relevant administrative agency). In the case of the plaintiff, in order to install waste disposal facilities with a size of 30,00 square meters or more in quasi-agricultural area according to the restrictions under Article 15(1)4 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 14(1)3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of

B. Next, we examine the second argument of the plaintiff.

Examining the reasons for the disposition of this case by the defendant, it is the main reason to return the application of this case as the result of the lack of practical benefit in examining the application of this case before the change of the plan for utilization of the national territory is made, and the reason or reason is clear. The part as to why it is difficult to modify the plan for utilization of the national territory is merely the name of the defendant's campaign speech, and the expression "dys" is also an explanation about the situation such as the opposition to the residents in the course of newspaper announcement and opinion gathering. Thus, this cannot be deemed as violating the provisions of Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act, and it cannot be viewed as a violation of the provisions of Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act, and it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case on the grounds that the defendant cannot install facilities whose area is 30,00 square meters or more in

C. Finally, we examine the plaintiff's third argument.

(i)In general, in administrative legal relations, in order to be subject to the principle of the protection of trust to an act of an administrative agency, ① the administrative agency must name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to an individual, ② the administrative agency’s trust in the statement of opinion is not attributable to the individual, ③ the individual should have trusted that the statement of opinion was justifiable and should have engaged in any act based on it, ④ the administrative agency’s disposition contrary to the above statement of opinion would result in infringing on the individual’s interest.

If a certain administrative disposition satisfies the above requirements, it shall be deemed illegal as an act contrary to the principle of trust protection, unless it is likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party.

(2) In this case, in full view of the whole purport of pleading as to Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 through 5 and Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 through 10, the defendant raised an objection against the designation and public notice of a conservation forest within Bocheon-si on April 28, 1997 by the defendant as to the designation and public notice of the conservation forest within Bocheon-si on May 28, 1997 by the plaintiff as to the designation and public notice of the conservation forest within Bocheon-si 98-1 and 98-2 and 1020 square meters in aggregate among the three parcels of Bocheon-si 102, the above land was used in relation to the construction of waste disposal facilities, and thus, the defendant did not use the above public land for the implementation of administrative procedures such as the alteration of utilization of the national land before the designation and public notice of the conservation forest, but did not conflict with the relevant administrative procedures such as the alteration of the use of the forest to the extent of its use, and it did not recognize the defendant's objection to the above public land as an objection.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Min Il-young (Presiding Judge)