2017No1750 Violation of the Soil Environment Conservation Act

A (54 - 1), self-business

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 594 Decided November 22, 2017

August 31, 2018

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of this judgment shall be published.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles

(1) Article 10-4(3) of the Soil Environment Conservation Act provides that, where there are at least two persons responsible for purification, competent authorities shall order soil purification in consideration of the degree of responsibility of each person responsible for purification for soil contamination, and the appropriateness of prompt and smooth soil purification. In order to purify the instant land in accordance with the instant purification order, it is practically impossible for the Defendant, who is not economically capable, to conduct soil purification. Therefore, taking into account the possibility of prompt and smooth soil purification, an order to conduct soil purification to dopco, who is the owner and manager of oil pipelines, subject to the control of soil contamination, should be ordered, taking into account the degree of liability for the instant soil contamination, which is the owner of the instant land, who requested the Defendant, rather than the Defendant, to install the government room. Therefore, in light of the degree of liability for the instant soil contamination, it is necessary to order soil purification to B, without considering such circumstances, the Defendant violated the provisions of Article 10(3) of the Soil Environment Conservation Act or committed an abuse of discretionary authority, etc.

(2) Despite the fact that the instant purification measure order is an infringement administrative disposition, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu did not give prior notice to the Defendant on the ground that it constitutes “where it is necessary to take an urgent measure for the safety and welfare of the public” under Article 21(4)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In the process of issuing the instant purification measure order, there is no exceptional circumstance where the aforementioned procedure may be omitted. Thus, the instant purification measure order is an illegal administrative disposition violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

(3) Ultimately, the instant purification order is unlawful. Thus, even if the Defendant did not comply with the instant purification order, it cannot be concluded that the Defendant violated Article 29 Subparag. 1 and Article 11(3) of the Soil Environment Conservation Act against the Defendant.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (the fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of the facts charged

A person in charge of purification of contaminated soil who has been ordered to take measures for purification within a specified period from the competent authority shall perform the said order.

On October 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) destroyed pipelines for the development and utilization of groundwater on the land located in the Jeonsi-si, Jeonsi-si (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) caused soil contamination by leaking petroleum containing TPH, beeute, and tyrene, etc., which are soil contaminants into the soil (hereinafter “instant soil contamination”).

The Defendant received an order for the purification of contaminated soil under the name of the head of Yancheon-gu (hereinafter referred to as “instant order for purification measures”) within the prescribed period (from February 18, 2016 to February 17, 2017) at the office located in the Yanju-gun, 2016, to the effect that he/she would take measures to purify the contaminated land within the prescribed period (from February 18, 2016 to February 17, 2017), but failed to comply with the order without justifiable grounds.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. Whether the Soil Environment Conservation Act violates the Soil Environment Conservation Act or the discretionary power is deviates or abused

(1) Relevant laws and regulations

As shown in the attached Form.

(2) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence adopted, the lower court determined that the instant purification order was lawful, on the ground that the instant purification order did not violate the Soil Environment Conservation Act-related provisions, or was in violation of discretionary power, or that there was a deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

(A) Article 10-3(1) of the Soil Environment Conservation Act imposes strict liability on a person who causes soil contamination, and Article 10-4(1)1 of the same Act stipulates a person who causes soil contamination as a person responsible for purification. Article 5-3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a person responsible for purification shall be responsible for purification.

In other words, pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Soil Environment Conservation Act, the head of the complete mountain is to issue an order to take measures to purify contaminated soil in order of the person who causes soil contamination, the possessor and operator of the facility, the owner and occupant of the land where soil contamination occurred, and the former owner of the above land.

(B) Article 5-3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Soil Environment Conservation Act provides that "a person who causes soil contamination, possessor or operator of a facility subject to soil contamination, owner or occupant of the facility in question, landowner or occupant of the land in which soil contamination occurred, and a person who was the owner of the above land shall issue an order to conduct purification of the contaminated soil" in the order of order of the former owner of the above land. However, where it is exceptionally determined that the purification cost to be borne by a person responsible for purification in preference to Article 5-3(2)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Soil Environment Conservation Act is not possible to conduct soil purification, etc. in excess of his/her property value, the order may be issued to a person responsible for purification before giving priority to the junior person responsible for purification." In addition, Article 10-4(5) of the same Act provides that the State may subsidize all or part of the expenses incurred in purifying the contaminated soil if the Defendant has made reasonable efforts to implement the purification order in this case.

(3) Judgment of the court below

In addition to the above circumstances as stated by the court below, in full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the court below's determination that the purification order of this case did not violate the relevant provisions of the Soil Environment Conservation Act, and did not violate the Soil Environment Conservation Act, and did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

(A) The pipeline pipeline r (hereinafter referred to as dopco) on the stock company, which is the owner and manager of the pipeline subject to the control of soil contamination, will cooperate every half year with the relevant agency or the construction company even if the contact staff would not leave the site and the pipeline will not be damaged. '' The contact will be changed before the construction because the high-tension pipeline is laid underground in the vicinity of the area. '' is installed at approximately 100 meters prior to the construction. 1) However, the Defendant and the owner of the instant land, who requested the construction of the pipeline, did not contact with dopco prior to the commencement of the construction of the pipeline. 2)

(B) In examining the instant land at the investigative agency, B stated to the effect that the Defendant was able to clearly express the fact that the oil pipeline passes on this case’s land, and that the Defendant was carrying out the dopco installation work after communicating with the dopco, but the Defendant unilaterally carried out the official installation work while the Defendant did not participate in it. 3) Accordingly, the Defendant may be deemed the most responsible person for the instant soil contamination. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant is the first responsible person for the instant soil contamination pursuant to Article 10-4(1)1 of the Soil Environment Conservation Act and Article 5-3(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(C) The Defendant was unable to carry out the instant purification order due to lack of economic capacity on the part of the Nansan-gu Office, or was responsible for its own fault, 93 pages, 115-119 pages, 128 pages of the investigation records.

2) 115 pages of investigation records

3) Investigation records 92 to 96 pages, 135 pages

It is difficult to readily conclude that, without raising an objection to the purport, the land purification work was not commenced for one year from the implementation period after receiving the instant purification order, and there was no objective data to verify the property value owned by the Defendant. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the purification cost to be borne by the Defendant significantly exceeds the property value owned by the Defendant, and the performance of soil purification work was impossible. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the head of Busan Metropolitan City is not the Defendant who is not the first person responsible for the purification but the lower person responsible for the soil contamination of this case, but rather the lower person responsible for the purification, who did not order the land purification to the lower person responsible for the soil contamination of this case, was in violation of Article 10-4(3) of the Soil Environment Conservation Act, Article 5-3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, or that the lower person who did not order the land purification to the lower person responsible for the purification of this case without negligence.

B. Whether Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act are violated

(1) Relevant legal principles

According to Articles 21(1), 21(4), and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act, where an administrative agency imposes an obligation on a party or imposes a restriction on his/her rights and interests, it shall notify the party concerned of the fact that the grounds for the disposition, details of the disposition, and legal basis thereof, the submission of his/her opinion, and the method of disposal when failing to present his/her opinion, etc., and, even in cases where the Act and subordinate statutes stipulate that a hearing shall be held or a public hearing shall be held, the party concerned, etc. shall be given an opportunity to present his/her opinion, but a prior notice or hearing of opinion may not be given only in cases where there are reasonable grounds for clearly difficult or unnecessary considering the nature of the disposition in question. Accordingly, the administrative agency’s failure to give such prior notice to the party or 4) investigation records, 50-51 pages, 140 pages.

If the opportunity to present opinions is not given, the disposition cannot be relieved of revocation due to its illegality, unless the prior notice is given or it does not fall under exceptional cases where the opportunity to present opinions is omitted. Furthermore, even if the pertinent disposition is not void as a matter of course, it cannot be concluded that the Defendant’s non-performance of the disposition violates relevant laws (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do7321, Sept. 21, 2017).

Considering the fact that the Administrative Procedures Act is an Act prepared to ensure the fairness, transparency, and trust in administration and to protect the rights and interests of the people by promoting the participation of the people in administration, and that it can prevent unlawful and unfair infringement on the rights and interests of the people in advance and have an administrative agency have an opportunity to take corrective measures through prior notice and hearing of opinions, it is reasonable to strictly interpret the grounds for exception that may omit prior notice and hearing of opinions.

(2) Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(A) A fire station, dopco, etc. are called up to the site of the accident immediately after the occurrence of the soil contamination in this case, remove the oil flown by putting in the surrounding area of the oil flown, recover the oil flown through the natural flown to a large tank, and repair and restore the damaged oil pipelines until October 18, 2015. 5)

(B) On October 19, 2015, the head of dopco ordered the soil pollution inspection of the instant land to dopco; dopco requested the National Environment Research Institute that is a foundation to conduct an inspection; 6) The National Environment Research Institute that is a foundation exceeds the soil contamination risk level on October 23, 2015 46 pages of the investigation records.

6) 36 pages, 39 pages of investigation records

The results of the inspection of the detection of soil contaminants were notified. 7)

(C) On October 26, 2015, the head of the Nansan-si ordered the Defendant to submit an implementation report after conducting the detailed soil survey until January 26, 2016. The Defendant requested the Nansan Environment Research Institute to conduct the detailed soil survey. The Nansan Environment Research Institute incorporated on January 26, 2016, notified the Defendant of the results of the detailed soil survey, accompanied by TPH 12, 338 g/ 72mg, kg, 2.3mg/ Kg, 18 Giene 51mg/ Kg, 1, 5222: 3, 89m contaminated soil: 8m2, 672: 9m2, 9m2.

(D) On February 17, 2016, the head of the Sinsan District Court issued an order to take measures to purify contaminated soil by February 17, 2017 to the Defendant to submit a performance report without delay when the implementation of the order is completed. Paragraph (5) of the pertinent official document indicates that the Defendant omitted a prior notice of the disposition of the administrative disposition because it is necessary to take urgent measures for public safety and welfare pursuant to Article 21(4)1 of the Administrative Procedures Act.

(E) The Defendant did not perform the purification work for purifying contaminated soil, such as submitting a contaminated soil purification plan. On February 17, 2017, the public official in charge of the Nansan-gu Office visited the instant land to check the soil contamination purification condition, but confirmed that the purification work was not performed. 11)

(f) On February 23, 2017, the head of dopco issued a prior notice to dopco, who is a person responsible for purification, stating that he/she will submit his/her opinion on a purification order by March 10, 2017, and on March 10, 2017, the head of dopco requested on March 10, 2017 that the branch office of the Korea Oil Pipeline Corporation will extend the period of implementation from 1 to 2 years. 12)

7) Five pages of the investigation records, 39~ 40 pages

8) Investigation records 34 to 35 pages

19) 21 pages, 25-33 pages of investigation records

10) Investigation records 19 to 20 pages

11) Six pages of investigation records, 13~14 pages

(g) However, on March 17, 2017, the head of dopco responded that the implementation period may be extended up to twice a year, if it is inevitable to perform soil purification works, and that the implementation period may be extended up to twice a year. By March 16, 2018, he/she ordered purification measures to purify contaminated soil until March 16, 2018. 13)

(3) Determination

It is recognized by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

Examining the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, only the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to view that there is "necessary to take urgent measures for the safety and welfare of the public" under Article 21 (4) 1 of the Administrative Procedures Act at the time of the issuance of the purification order of this case, which provides that prior notice and hearing procedures may be omitted. Thus, the purification order of this case, which was taken without prior notice and hearing of opinions, is unlawful because procedural defects exist. Thus, even if the defendant did not comply with the purification order of this case, the crime of violation of Article 29 subparagraph 1 of the Soil Environment Conservation Act and Article 11 (3) of the Soil Environment Conservation Act cannot be established against the defendant. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion pointing this out has merit.

(A) From the date immediately after the occurrence of the instant soil contamination to the next day, it appears that the emergency measures were taken to prevent further soil contamination, such as removing the flow from the oil pipelines and repairing and restoring the damaged oil pipelines. Meanwhile, the head of the Nansan ordered the instant purification measures from October 17, 2015 to February 17, 2016, four months after the date on which the instant soil contamination occurred. In addition, the head of the Nansan ordered the Defendant to conduct the instant purification measures for the said period, and the head of the Nansan Port Office issued an order to prevent additional proliferation of the soil contamination, except for those ordered the Defendant to conduct the soil contamination investigation for the said period. 12) The investigation record 103-107 pages of the investigation record.

13) Investigation records 108 to 110 pages

14) When the purification order of this case is issued, it does not seem that it is necessary to urgently purify the land of this case to the extent that prior notice and hearing procedures should be omitted.

(B) The head of dopco ordered the Defendant and dopco to conduct soil purification by setting a performance period of one year, and dopco selected a purification company and a verification institution and consulted for the use of surrounding land, and presented opinions that it takes more than two years to purify the instant land according to the method of purification (in situ) within the site. In other words, it seems that the Defendant basically takes considerable time until completion of the soil purification work in accordance with the instant purification order. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there is a need to take urgent measures in order to achieve the purpose of the instant purification order.

(C) Unlike the Defendant, the head of dopco, unlike the Defendant, notified the dopco responsible for purification before ordering the land purification to substitute for the subordinate dopco, and consulted with the opinion, and the period from February 23, 2017, which was 15 days until March 10, 2017, which received the opinion, was 15 days. Considering the situation before issuing the order for the purification measures of this case as referred to in the aforementioned paragraphs (a) and (b) and the time required for the purification work, even if the order for the purification measures of this case was completed in advance of about two weeks necessary for obtaining the prior notice and hearing, it is also difficult to view that the purpose can be achieved to prevent additional proliferation of soil contamination.

(D) On the other hand, the head of the Nansan Forest Office is clear about the fact-finding of this Court, and there is a possibility that the scope of pollution would have been contaminated with groundwater due to oil leakage in the course of the installation work of underground water, as time elapsed due to the characteristics of soil contamination caused by oil, and that there was a possibility that groundwater would have been polluted due to oil outflow during the installation work of underground water. The residents 14) 7-8 pages of the examination record of witnesses C

Since drinking groundwater may harm the health of the polluted groundwater, in other words, it was determined that measures are necessary to prevent and eliminate immediate contamination for the public safety. Accordingly, prior notice and hearing of opinions were omitted pursuant to Article 21(4)1 of the Administrative Procedures Act and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act." However, C, who was a public official in charge of Yansan-gu ecological parks and greenbelts, was presumed to have been polluted by the soil contamination of this case, and did not make any further investigation or experiment on the degree of groundwater contamination, the degree of groundwater contamination, the speed of the proliferation of pollutants, etc.

(E) Although the Defendant did not institute an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the instant purification measure order within the filing period, it is illegal even if the instant purification measure order is not void as a matter of course.

As long as recognized, Defendant cannot be punished for a violation of Article 29 subparag. 1 and Article 11(3) of the Soil Environment Conservation Act due to nonperformance of the instant purification order.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of the legal principles is with merit, so the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the following decision is rendered again through pleading

15) The 9-10 pages of the examination record of the witness C in the trial of the party.

【Grounds for another judgment】

The facts charged in the instant case are as indicated in Paragraph 2, and this constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts as seen in Paragraph 3.b., and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the summary of the judgment of innocence pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Park fixed-scale

Judges Hwang Young-ju

Judges Kim-ju -

Site of separate sheet

Relevant statutes

▣ 구 토양환경보전법 ( 2015 . 12 . 1 . 법률 제13534호로 개정되기 전의 것 )

Article 10-3 (Strict Liability, etc. for Damages Resulting from Soil Contamination)

(1) Where any damages have occurred due to soil contamination, the person who has caused such contamination shall compensate for such damages and soil contaminated by him/her.

Measures, such as purifying the quantity, shall be taken: Provided, That a natural disaster, war, or force majeure, the soil contamination shall be caused by force majeure.

shall not be required to be incurred by the Corporation.

(2) Where there are two or more persons causing soil contamination, which person has caused the damage under paragraph (1).

When it is impossible to identify, each person shall jointly and severally compensate for the contaminated soil and take measures to purify the contaminated soil, etc.

Article 10-4 (Responsibility, etc. for Purification of Contaminated Soil)

(1) Any of the following persons, as a person responsible for purification, shall be referred to in Articles 11 (3), 14 (1), and 15:

Detailed soil surveys, purification of contaminated soil, or improvement of contaminated soil under paragraphs (1) and (3) or Article 19 (1).

The implementation (hereafter referred to as the "soil purification, etc." in this Article) shall be conducted.

1. A person who causes soil contamination by discharging, leaking, dumping, neglecting soil contaminants, or by any other act;

2. The owner, occupant or operator of facilities subject to the control of soil contamination, which caused soil contamination at the time soil contamination occurs;

3. A person who has comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of those falling under subparagraphs 1 and 2 due to a merger, inheritance or other reasons.

4. Any person who previously owned or currently owns or occupies land on which soil contamination has occurred.

(2) (Omission)

(3) A Mayor/Do Governor or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall Article 11(3), 14(1), or 15(1) and (3) or

Where at least two persons responsible for purification, who may order soil purification, etc. pursuant to Article 19 (1), shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

the degree of responsibility of each person responsible for purification for the soil contamination, and prompt and smooth soil purification as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

An order for soil purification, etc. shall be issued in consideration of the feasibility, etc., and if necessary, soil purification under Article 10-9.

may consult with the Advisory Committee.

(4) (Omission)

(5) Articles 11 (3), 14 (1), and 15 (1) shall apply to any of the following cases:

· Expenses incurred in conducting soil purification, etc. pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article or paragraph 1 of Article 19 (Indemnification pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 10)

the expenses that can be repaid through the exercise of the right and the increases in the value of the relevant land due to soil purification, etc.

The full or part of the amount to be paid shall be excluded; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be subsidized, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

of the corporation.

heading 1. to 4. (Omission)

Article 11 (Reporting, etc. on Soil Contamination)

(2) The Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall receive a report under paragraph (1) or discharge or discharge soil contaminants.

When the facts of soil contamination have been discovered or when other facts of soil contamination have been discovered, a public official under his/her control shall be required to do so.

It may be allowed to enter the relevant land to investigate the cause of pollution and the pollution level.

(3) As a result of the investigation referred to in paragraph (2), with respect to the soil (hereinafter referred to as "soil contamination") whose contamination level exceeds the standards for concerns thereof.

The soil precision performed by a soil-related specialized agency within a fixed period, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

The execution of investigation, and measures to purify contaminated soil may be ordered.

▣ 토양환경보전법 시행령

Article 5-3 (Order, etc. to Two or More Persons Responsible for Soil Purification, etc.)

(1) Pursuant to Article 10-4 (3) of the Act, a Mayor/Do Governor or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall do so pursuant to Article 10-4 (1) of the Act.

Where a person responsible for purification (hereinafter referred to as "person responsible for purification") is at least two persons responsible for purification, he/she shall do so in the following order:

Article 14 (1), 15 (1) and (3), or 19 (1), the detailed soil survey and contaminated soil survey under paragraph (3) of the same Article, Article 14 (1), Article 15 (1) and (3)

The execution of projects for purification or improvement of contaminated soil (hereinafter referred to as the “soil purification, etc.”) shall be ordered.

1. A person responsible for purification under Article 10-4 (1) 1 of the Act and a person who comprehensively succeeds to rights and obligations of a person responsible for purification;

2. An occupant or an operator of facilities subject to the control of soil contamination, among persons responsible for purification under Article 10-4 (1) 2 of the Act;

A person who comprehensively succeeds to the rights and obligations of an occupant or operator;

3. The owner of facilities subject to the control of soil contamination among persons responsible for purification under Article 10-4 (1) 2 of the Act and the rights of such owner;

· a person who has comprehensively succeeded to the obligations;

4. Current possession or possession of land where soil contamination has occurred, among persons responsible for purification under Article 10-4 (1) 4 of the Act;

person.

5. A person who owns land where soil contamination has occurred, among persons responsible for purification referred to in Article 10-4 (1) 4 of the Act;

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a Mayor/Do Governor or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall fall under any of the following subparagraphs:

In the case of paragraph (1), prior to any person responsible for purification of a junior person among persons responsible for purification;

order soil purification, etc.

1. Where the person responsible for senior management cannot be verified because his/her address is unknown, etc.;

2. A person responsible for senior purification is highly responsible for the relevant soil contamination compared with a person responsible for junior purification;

if it is deemed that

3. The purification cost to be borne by a person responsible for senior management significantly exceeds the value of property owned by him/her;

Where it is deemed impossible to conduct soil purification, etc.

4. A junior person responsible for purification, etc. raises an objection to the performance of soil purification, etc. by a person responsible for senior purification;

or does not cooperate;

5. A person responsible for senior management to conduct an investigation necessary to verify a person responsible for senior management or take other measures;

in the absence of such assistance;

E.B. Administrative Procedures Act

Article 21 (Prior Notice of Dispositions)

(1) Where administrative agencies impose duties on parties or impose restrictions on their rights and interests, the following administrative agencies in advance:

the parties, etc. shall be notified of such information.

1. Title of the disposition;

2. Names or titles and domiciles of the parties;

3. The factual grounds for the disposition and the details of the disposition and legal grounds;

4. Advices that opinions may be submitted on the items of subparagraph 3 above and the processing methods when no opinions are submitted;

5. Name and address of an institution to present opinions;

6. Deadline for submitting opinions.

7. Other necessary matters.

(2) (Omission)

(Omission)

(4) The notification under paragraph (1) need not be given in any of the following cases:

1. Where an urgent disposition is necessary for the safety and welfare of the general public;

2. When any qualification required by Acts and subordinate statutes, etc. is not available or extinguished, a certain disposition shall be taken.

Where it is objectively proved by a court judgment, etc. that the person has no qualification or lost;

3. Where deemed that hearing opinions is significantly impracticable or clearly unnecessary due to the nature of the relevant disposition.

, if any,

Article 22 (Hearing Opinions)

(3) Cases falling under paragraphs (1) and (2) when administrative agencies impose duties on parties or restrict their rights and interests.

Except for the parties, the parties shall be given an opportunity to present their opinions.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (3), cases falling under any subparagraph of Article 21 (4).

If the parties have clearly indicated their intent to waive the opportunity to state their opinions, the hearing of opinions may not be conducted.

(2).

E.B. Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedures Act

Article 13 (Grounds for Omission of Prior Notice of Disposition)

Cases where a prior notice may not be given pursuant to Article 21(4) and (5) of the Act shall be either of the following cases:

(2) if any of the following events occurs:

1. Where an urgent disposition is necessary for public safety and welfare, such as the prevention and removal of an imminent danger and injury;

2. Facts constituting the premise for disposition in accordance with a court judgment or a decision of an administrative agency that goes through a quasi-judicial procedure;

In cases where hearing of opinions is deemed unnecessary due to the disposition after objectively proven;

3. It shall give an opportunity to hear opinions to induce an act that may seriously harm the public interest known in advance.

Where hearing of opinions is considerably difficult due to the nature of the relevant disposition, such as anticipated;

4. Technical standards to be observed by Acts and subordinate statutes or municipal ordinances and rules (hereinafter referred to as "Acts and subordinate statutes, etc.") shall be clearly prescribed;

c) to conduct a disposition on the grounds of a fact that the standard does not significantly exceed the standard, the experiment and guidance

Where it has been clearly proved by any other objective method;

5. Where an order is issued to a person who meets certain requirements in Acts and subordinate statutes, etc. to pay money, such as occupancy fees and usage fees;

It is clear that it falls under the requirements prescribed by Cabinet, etc. and there is no room for discretion in the calculation of the amount by the administrative agency.

Recognition that hearing of opinions is clearly unnecessary due to the nature of the relevant disposition, such as cases clearly determined;

(2) the end of any of the following events: