1. The Defendant, on August 13, 2018, failed to comply with the waste treatment business plan (domestic waste collection and transportation business) that the Plaintiff collected.

Details of the disposition

On July 20, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a waste disposal business plan to the Defendant for the purpose of engaging in the domestic waste collection and transportation business.

On August 13, 2018, the Defendant issued a notice of non-conformity with the waste disposal plan (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the grounds as follows.

B. It is unlawful that the Defendant rendered the instant disposition on the grounds other than the matters listed in Article 25(2) of the Wastes Control Act, by asserting that the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is legitimate, in fact without any dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleading

The Defendant’s disposal of this case is unlawful because it has already been properly managed by 13 companies, and there is no expansion plan for the domestic waste collection and transportation business.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Judgment

In full view of the legislative purpose and provisions of the Wastes Control Act, the nature of permission for waste disposal business, and the purpose of the system for notification of conformity with the project plan, etc., the public interest such as smooth and appropriate disposal of wastes as well as the feasibility of administration to fulfill the public interest such as smooth and appropriate disposal of wastes, when examining whether a waste disposal business plan is appropriate, if it is deemed that there is a risk of impeding the public interest, such as the implementation of stable and efficient responsible administration for collection, transportation, and disposal of wastes, even if there is no conflict or problem, if it is deemed that there is no conflict or problem, the inappropriate notification of the project plan may be made on such ground.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Du12283, Nov. 10, 201). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, “the instant disposition was unlawful on the grounds other than those listed in Article 25(2) of the Wastes Control Act.”