[Defendant-Appellant] Korea National Oil Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Jong-he et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Han River basin Environmental Office (Law Firm Urban and Doz., Attorney true-in-Law)

June 13, 2019

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2018Guhap65422 decided November 22, 2018

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 100,000,000 against the Plaintiff on February 22, 2018 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff obtained a license for interim disposal of designated wastes from the Defendant on March 23, 2000 (specialized incineration) and is an interim waste disposal company that obtained a license for interim disposal of wastes other than designated wastes from the ○○ market on December 8, 2003 (specialized incineration).

B. From the date of 2011, the Plaintiff engaged in an interim disposal business with one term of general incineration facilities and one term of high temperature incineration facilities. From August 1, 2015 to June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff retired more than 30/100 of the permitted disposal capacity in relation to each of the above incineration facilities.

C. On February 22, 2018, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million on the Plaintiff in lieu of a disposition of business suspension for six months (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The specific grounds for the disposition are as follows.

The penalty surcharge for the violation of the Wastes Control Act (overage incineration) contained in the main text shall be paid within the time limit as follows. Where permitted matters are modified without obtaining ○○ permission for modification (Article 29(1)2 (e) of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act): the period of violation of Article 25(11) of the Wastes Control Act: Article 27(2) of the Wastes Control Act: from August 1, 2015 to June 30, 2017:

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including additional evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be as stated.

3. The legality of the instant disposition

A. As to the existence of the grounds for the disposition

1) Summary of the parties’ assertion

A) Plaintiff

이 사건 처분의 대상은 원고가 보유한 각 소각처리시설에 관해 허가받은 처리능력의 100분의 30을 초과하여 폐기물을 과다소각 처리한 행위이다. 피고는 위 행위는 변경허가를 받지 않고 허가사항을 변경한 경우에 해당한다고 하면서, 그 근거법령으로 구 폐기물관리법 시행규칙 제29조 제1항 제2호 ㈒목 (이하 ‘이 사건 변경허가조항’이라 한다) 및 폐기물관리법 제25조 제11항 을 들고 있다. 그런데 이 사건 변경허가조항에서 변경허가를 받아야 할 중요사항으로서 ‘처분용량’은, 실제 처분량을 의미하는 ‘소각량’과는 구별되는 것으로 ‘처분용량의 변경’이 되기 위해서는 폐기물 소각시설의 규격이나 구조적·기능적 변동을 수반하면서 소각시설 자체의 시간당 최대 처리능력이 변경되어야 한다. 따라서 이러한 물리적 변동 없이 기존의 소각로에서 단지 허가받은 처리능력을 초과하여 폐기물을 과다 소각하는 행위는 이 사건 변경허가조항의 변경허가 대상에 해당하지 아니한다. 따라서 이 사건 처분 사유는 인정되지 않는다.

B) Defendant

The phrase “waste disposal capacity” under the instant modified license clause is subject to modified license even in cases where an enterprise discharges waste more than the originally permitted disposal capacity even without any change in the size, structure, or function of the waste incineration facility. Therefore, the instant disposal ground for the excessive incineration of waste without such modified license is acknowledged.

2) Issues

The key issue of the instant disposition is whether “the Plaintiff’s excessive incineration of wastes in excess of 30/100 of the incineration capacity of the disposal facility without obtaining permission for modification” constitutes an important matter subject to permission for modification as stated in the instant modified permission provision.

3) Determination

A) The administrative laws and regulations, which form the basis for an indivative administrative disposition that causes unfavorable consequences to the other party to the disposition, must be strictly interpreted and applied as in the case of penal laws and regulations, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the other party to the administrative disposition. Even if the teleological interpretation that takes into account the legislative intent, purpose, etc. is not entirely excluded, such interpretation shall not go beyond the ordinary meaning of the text and text

B) In full view of the evidence as seen earlier in the content, structure, and revision history of the Wastes Control Act, evidence Nos. 14, 16, and evidence No. 6, and Nos. 7, as well as the overall purport of pleadings, the “waste disposal capacity” under the amended provisions of the instant case refers to the “waste disposal capacity per hour for the relevant waste disposal facility.” It is reasonable to deem that the foregoing provision does not include the provision that stipulates that permission for modification should be obtained in a case where waste is discharged in excess of the originally permitted waste disposal capacity without any structural and functional change in the size, structure, and function of the waste disposal facility. Accordingly, the instant disposition, based on the premise that excessive incineration of waste in excess of 30/100 of the incineration capacity of the waste disposal facility is subject to permission for modification, should be revoked as it is erroneous by applying the relevant laws and regulations.

⑴ 이 사건 처분은 폐기물관리법 제25조 제11항 , 제27조 제2항 제10호 , 구 폐기물관리법 시행규칙 제29조 제1항 제2호 ㈒목 (‘이 사건 변경허가조항’)을 근거조항으로 하고 있다. 폐기물관리법 제27조 제2항 제10호 에 따라 환경부장관이나 시·도지사는 폐기물처리업자가 제25조 제11항 에 따른 변경허가를 받거나 변경신고를 하지 아니하고 ‘허가사항’이나 신고사항을 변경한 경우 허가취소 내지 영업정지처분을 명할 수 있다. 따라서 피고가 이 사건 처분의 근거조항에 따라 제재처분을 부과하기 위해서는 원고가 변경허가를 받아야 할 사항인 ‘처분용량’의 변경허가를 받지 않고 그 사항을 변경하였을 것이 요구된다.

The meaning of “waste disposal capacity”, which is an important matter subject to permission of change in the instant amended provision, appears not to be defined under the Wastes Control Act. However, a person who intends to operate a waste treatment business, and an application for permission to submit a business plan to an administrative agency and an application for permission to operate a waste treatment business, is required to enter “specifications capacity” of the relevant facilities and equipment as “the content of installation of facilities and equipment,” and such application means the hourly disposal capacity and daily average operation scheduled time of the relevant disposal (see attached Forms 17 and 18 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act). In this case, even the license for the intermediate waste disposal business issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff (see Evidence 1-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act), each hour and maximum daily disposal capacity of the general incineration facilities and high temperature incineration facilities, which are the disposal facilities, are the capacity to treat the relevant disposal facilities per hour without the Defendant’s permission of change. Therefore, the Defendant can be subject to sanctions pursuant to the instant amended provision.

⑶ 이 사건 변경허가조항 외에 폐기물관리법 시행규칙 제29조 제1항 제2호 에서 열거하고 있는 폐기물 중간처분업의 허가를 받은 자가 변경허가를 받아야 할 중요사항은 ‘폐기물 처분시설의 신설[㈑목]’, ‘주요 설비의 변경[㈓목]’ 등으로 처분시설의 물리적·구조적·기능적 변경을 수반함을 전제로 하고 있는 것으로 보인다.

⑷ 환경부는 2018. 7. 25. 환경부공고 제2018-590호로 ‘폐기물관리법 시행규칙 일부개정령(안) 입법예고’를 공고하였는데, 위 일부개정안은 이 사건 변경허가조항을 ‘처분용량(허가 또는 변경허가를 받은 후 변경되는 누계를 말한다) 100분의 30 이상의 변경(처분시설의 증설로 처분용량이 100분의 30 이상 증가되는 경우 또는 처리량이 허가받은 처분용량보다 100분의 30 이상 증가되는 경우를 말한다)’으로 개정하기로 예정하면서 후문의 ‘소각시설의 증설 등 변경 없이 소각물량만 100분의 30을 초과하는 행위’도 변경허가사항에 포함되도록 명시함을 그 개정사유로 들고 있었다. 그러나 2018. 12. 31. 환경부령 제796호로 개정된 폐기물관리법 시행규칙 제29조 제1항 제2호 ㈒목 은 이 사건 변경허가조항의 문언을 “폐기물 처분시설의 증설, 개·보수 또는 그 밖의 방법으로 허가 또는 변경허가를 받은 처분용량의 100분의 30 이상의 변경(허가 또는 변경허가를 받은 후 변경되는 누계를 말한다)”으로 개정함으로써, ① 변경허가의 대상이 되는 ‘처분용량의 변경’이 물리적·구조적·기능적 변경을 수반하거나 이에 준하는 방법으로 인한 경우에 한정되고, ② 위 처분용량이 허가사항에 기재되는 시간당 처리 능력임을 명확히 하였다. 이러한 개정 경위나 그 문언이 변경되는 과정에 비추어 보았을 때, 이 사건 변경허가조항의 개정은 당초 이 사건 변경허가조항이 처리능력의 변경 없이 허가받은 처리능력 이상의 폐기물을 투입하여 처리하는 경우까지 변경허가의 대상으로 포섭하지 아니함을 명확히 하여 그 불명확성을 제거하려는 의도에서 이루어졌다고 할 것이다. 이와 달리 피고가 주장하는 것처럼 이 사건 변경허가조항의 개정으로 비로소 처리능력의 변경 없이 허가받은 처리능력 이상의 폐기물을 투입하여 처리하는 경우가 변경허가의 대상에서 제외되었다고 볼 수는 없다. 마찬가지의 이유로 환경부장관의 2019. 5. 22.자 ‘사실조회 요청에 대한 회신’(을 제9호증의1)도 이를 그대로 받아들이기 어려울 뿐 아니라 아래에서 보는 그동안의 실무관행과도 부합하지 아니한다.

(v) Meanwhile, in the instant modified license clause, it appears that the term “nick” appears to have used the expression “nick” in order to include a case where the original disposal capacity, for which the permission or the permission of modification was obtained, has been modified by less than 30/100 on several occasions, and where not less than 30/10 of the permitted disposal capacity has been modified. As seen earlier, it appears that the term “nicking more than 30/100 of the permitted disposal capacity” was amended to read “a change in the disposal capacity.”

⑹ 폐기물처리업 허가를 받은 자가 이 사건 변경허가조항을 위반하여 처분용량을 100분의 30 이상 변경함에도 불구하고 폐기물처리업의 변경허가를 받지 아니하는 경우 행정처분의 대상이 될 뿐만 아니라 곧바로 형사처벌의 대상도 되므로( 폐기물관리법 제65조 제14호 ) 이 사건 변경허가조항을 함부로 확장해석하여서는 안 될 것이다.

⑺ 폐기물관리법상 폐기물처리업의 허가권자인 환경부장관 역시 2010년 11월 무렵 발행한 질의회신집에서 폐기물처리업의 허가대상은 처리시설의 최대 시설용량을 의미하고, 소각시설의 처리량은 변경될 수 있으나 그로써 시설용량(최대처리량)이 변경된 것으로 볼 수는 없다는 취지를 밝혔고(갑 제14호증), 2018년 2월경 폐기물처리업 변경허가 대상 유무에 관한 민원에 대하여, 가동시간을 연장하여 처리량이 100분의 30 이상 증가하더라도 폐기물처리업 변경허가 대상으로 보기 어렵고, 이 사건 변경허가조항의 ‘처분용량’은 해당 소각시설에서 소각 처분할 수 있는 폐기물의 최대용량을 의미한다는 취지로 답변(갑 제15호증)한 바 있다.

B. As to the specification, alteration, and addition of the reasons for the disposition

1) Summary of the parties' arguments

A) Defendant

이 사건 처분을 명한 행정처분명령서(갑 제2호증, 이하 ‘이 사건 처분서’라고 한다)에서 ‘변경허가를 받지 않고 허가사항을 변경한 경우 [ 폐기물관리법 제25조 제11항 ]’를 이 사건 처분의 처분사유로 기재하고 있고, 이를 구체화하면 원고는 처분시설을 증설하여 처분용량을 최초 허가 받은 처분용량의 100분의 30 이상 변경하였음에도 변경허가를 받지 아니하고 처분시설을 이용하여 폐기물을 소각하였는바, 이는 폐기물관리법 제25조 제11항 , 구 폐기물관리법 시행규칙(2018. 1. 17. 환경부령 제745호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제29조 제1항 ㈒목 을 위반한 행위이므로 여전히 이 사건 처분의 처분사유는 인정된다.

B) Plaintiff

The Defendant, at the time of the instant disposition, deemed the “excess incineration of wastes” rather than “physical extension of the disposal facilities” as the ground for disposal, and the Defendant’s assertion that “waste incineration using the disposal facilities without obtaining permission for modification, even though not less than 30/100 of the initially permitted disposal capacity by expanding the disposal facilities at the administrative litigation stage,” it is not permissible to claim that “waste incineration is made by using the disposal facilities without obtaining permission for modification.”

2) As to whether the instant disposition grounds are specified

In principle, the grounds for indivating administrative disposition should be specified in the disposition, and the contents and scope of the reason for the disposition should be determined through the objective meaning of the text and text of the disposition.

In light of the following facts: (a) the instant disposition merely stated the language and text of the statute on the basis of the instant disposition, and thus cannot be deemed as stating the specific facts constituting the grounds for the instant disposition; (b) on the other hand, the instant disposition specifies the Plaintiff’s violation as “excess incineration of waste”; and (c) the Defendant asserted that the meaning of “excess incineration exceeding 30/10 of the permitted incineration capacity without extension of facilities” was “retirement exceeding 30/10 of the permitted incineration capacity without extension of facilities” (see, e.g., the Defendant’s preparatory brief as of April 3, 2019) and the Plaintiff also provided that the illegality of the instant disposition was different on the premise that the instant disposition was set under the exclusive contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4 pages). It is reasonable to deem that the instant disposition was the grounds for the instant disposal. As alleged by the Defendant, it is difficult to deem that the instant disposition was an excessive incineration of waste exceeding 30/100 of the capacity of incineration of the disposal facilities without permission.”

3) As to whether the grounds for the disposition are added or modified

In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or change other grounds only to the extent that the original reason and basic factual relations are recognized to be identical. The existence of basic factual relations in this context is determined based on whether the grounds for disposition are identical in basic social facts in terms of the same fact before the legal evaluation is made. The purport of the interpretation is to realize the substantial rule of law and protect the trust of the other party to the administrative disposition by guaranteeing the other party’s right to defense against the administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du6392, Mar. 23, 2001; 200Du8684, Sept. 28, 2001; 200Du8684, Sept. 28, 2001). The reason for the addition or alteration has not been specified in the original reason at the time of disposition, and it has already existed at the time of disposition and has been known that the other party was also aware of such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Du3198, Dec. 198, 198.

In this court, the Defendant asserts that “the Plaintiff was incinerated using the disposal facility without obtaining permission for change even though the Plaintiff’s disposal capacity was modified by more than 30/100 of the initially permitted disposal capacity by expanding the disposal facility,” but this is argued to the purport that the identity of factual relations is difficult to be recognized as identical [the Defendant was unable to secure investigation data at the time of the instant disposition, thereby making it impossible for the Plaintiff to have convictiond the fact that the disposal facility was enlarged without permission for change. See the Defendant’s reference document (written statement as a preparatory document at the second date for pleading of April 25, 2019) as of April 25, 2019].

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not take a separate administrative disposition or dispute over the legality of the administrative disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff did not obtain permission for change even though the disposal capacity was changed by more than 30/100 of the initially permitted disposal capacity by expanding the disposal facility, the Defendant’s assertion in addition to the grounds for disposition in this case is not permissible. It is clear that the Defendant’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the disposition of this case is revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition

[Attachment]

Judges Noh Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)