Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Attorney Cho Jae-up, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Jeonju Market (Attorney Kim Dong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

September 26, 2016

Jeonju District Court Decision 2014Guhap1786 Decided July 22, 2015

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

On October 22, 2013, the Defendant revoked the portion exceeding KRW 846,491,00, out of the imposition of KRW 2,046,528,00 of the charges for the installation of waste disposal facilities for the Jeonju Innovation Urban Development Project on the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked, and the defendant falling under the revoked part shall revoke on October 22, 2013 the imposition of charges for expenses incurred in installing waste disposal facilities for the facilities for the facilities for the Jeonju Innovation Urban Development Project against the plaintiff

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the application of the following Paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a)Paragraph 9-2 of the first instance judgment shall be written in the following manner:

② Wastes generated in the instant project district as of March 2016 are disposed of at the “place for Food Waste Recycling Facilities in Jeonju-si”, which is set up in the “place for Food Waste Recycling Facilities in Jeonju-si” ( Address 1 omitted) and at the “place for Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si,” which is set up in the “place for Food Waste Recycling Facilities in Jeonju-si” (Article 9(1)1).

First, we examine whether the disposal of food waste that is likely to be generated in the instant project district has become final and conclusive in the “head of the food waste resource-generating facility at the time of Jeonju.”

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement of evidence No. 9-1, the head of the above food waste resource-generating facility may dispose of food waste of 300 tons per day. As of March 2015, the head of the above food waste resource-generating facility disposes of 271 tons per day as of March 2016, and treats all food waste generated at Jeonju as of March 2016. The Jeonju City is in a plan to move to ○○dong upon completion of September 30, 2016 to treat the whole quantity of the waste generated at Jeonju City as new construction method. On the other hand, the entire quantity of the waste generated at Jeonju City as a modern facility is able to be treated as the entrusted food waste generated at Jeonju City, while the entire quantity of the waste generated at Jeonju City (scale of more than 200 square meters and general restaurants, and food waste treatment facilities at Jeonju City as of September 30, 2016).

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a comprehensive consideration of the overall purport of pleadings in the statement in the statement in the above facts and Eul evidence No. 9, food wastes generated in Jeonju including the project district in this case on March 2016 are treated in full at the site of facilities for food waste resources in Jeonju, but considering the disposal capacity of 300 tons per day, it is already disposed of 271 tons per day as of 2015, and food wastes are continuously increased according to the urban development in Jeonjuju city, and it seems that the daily disposal volume per day is about to be spreading due to the continuous increase of food wastes in Jeonju city. As above, it seems that the measures to separately treat large quantities of waste to the private sector at the time of Jeonju city, including the project district in this case, have been determined to have been limited to the capacity to continuously dispose of all existing wastes in Jeonju city on the basis of the existing plan for food waste resources recycling facilities in the previous project district in this case, it is deemed that the aforementioned project district in this case has no choice but to be deemed to have been implemented and disposed of new facilities in advance.

(B) Next, we examine whether the disposal of household wastes that may be incinerated in the instant project district has become final and conclusive in the “former Share Certificates Retirement Resources Center.”

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement in the statement in the evidence No. 9-1 of Eul, the above incineration resource center may dispose of the domestic wastes of 400 tons per day as of 2015. As of 2015, the operation period is 202 tons per day in accordance with the agreement with the △△ Village △△△ Group, and thereafter, the disposal period is 2026 years in large scale and is planned to be extended by 10 years. The above incineration resource center may dispose of the domestic wastes sufficiently within the future short period, but if the volume of the domestic wastes exceeds 400 tons per day, it can be recognized that the new incineration resource center is scheduled to be constructed.

In addition, the above facts and the evidence No. 9, which are recognized as being comprehensively incorporated into the purport of the entire pleadings, are as follows: although the above incineration resource center disposes of 282 tons per day as of 2015, compared to the disposal capacity of 400 tons per day, it appears that the disposal quantity would not reach the limit for the future period; however, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of spreading the disposal volume per day due to the continuous increase of domestic waste according to urban development at the Jeonju city cannot be ruled out; as the above incineration resource center plans the maintenance through substantial repair around 2026, it is already planned to incur additional expenses; as seen earlier, it is expected that the disposal of domestic waste in the business district of this case would have been continuously increased due to the relocation and creation of domestic waste in the previous business district of this case; in light of the fact that the public agency, apartment house, apartment house, commercial building, etc. within the business district of this case as of July 2013, which is prior to the disposal of this case, it cannot be deemed that the disposal of domestic waste in this case was finalized.

(b)Paragraph 3 of the fifteenth decision of the first instance shall be made in the following manner:

However, considering the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the area of the ancillary facilities of the waste disposal facility should be determined in consideration of various factors, such as the characteristics of each waste disposal facility, the number of employees, and the method of operation, rather than to vary depending on the daily disposal capacity of the waste disposal facility, rather than the area of the ancillary facilities of the waste disposal facility.

According to the statement No. 8-2 of this Court, the inquiry of the fact about the waste-to-energy and other facilities of the Ministry of Environment (No. 2273 of the response of December 2, 2015), the Ministry of Environment’s waste-to-energy and waste-to-energy are as follows: (a) the reason or reason prescribed in the Standard Ordinance on the Calculation of Installation Costs of Waste Disposal Facilities under Housing Site Development; (b) the reason or reason for the provision of the "Management Dong" and “sub-dong and other facilities” in the attached Table 500 tons/day; (c) the method or reason for calculating the required size of the facilities different from the “waste disposal facilities”; (d) the method or reason for calculating the required size of the facilities, such as storage facilities, and the size of the facilities, including storage facilities, can be proportional to the incineration capacity of the facilities; (d) the Ministry of Environment’s amendment of the Ministry of Environment’s 2000 tons/day; (e) the installation and management guidelines of the facilities, including green facilities, etc.

However, the above Standard Ordinance and this case’s Ordinance appear to have been enacted on the basis that the total area of buildings, etc. falling under the detailed items of “management Dong” and “other facilities such as Sejongdong, etc.” is a minimum space for securing ancillary facilities. This is not specifically considered in light of the characteristics of each waste disposal facility and the number of employees and operating methods, etc., and there is no ground to deem that the above various buildings, etc. need to be comprehensively and uniformly for each waste disposal facility.

(b) The results of the fact-finding by the court of this case for local governments where waste treatment facilities with a relatively similar volume and treatment capacity during the project district of this case (3.43 tons of incineration wastes and 6.75 tons of food wastes) generated during the preceding week are installed are as follows.

In the name of the local government and the type of facilities included in the main sentence, the average number of persons working on the 2.4 tons in Jeju-si (Retirement Facilities) 2.4 tons in the area of other facilities, such as the Dong-dong and the Sejong-dong, etc. (3) 458.46 square meters in the area of waste disposal facilities, shall not be installed for 5 tons and 274.25 square meters in the area of 8 tons in the Nam Sea-gun (Dong-dong), 4, Seocheon-gun (Dong-dong), 160 square meters in the area of 160 square meters in the area of 250 square meters in the area of the waste disposal facilities, and there shall be three 5 tons in the area of 254.5 square meters in the area of other facilities, and there shall be no two 2 persons working on the 2nd floor of the food waste disposal facilities (Dong-dong), and there shall be no one person who is used by his/her employees on the 2nd floor of the facility.

Note 3) 2.4 tons

Note 4)

According to the results of the fact-finding, in a waste disposal facility with a similar daily waste volume and treatment capacity in the previous city in the project district of this case, the "management Dong" and "sub-dong and other facilities" are operated not only in different types of buildings required according to each waste disposal facility even if they were installed, but also in an area with a significantly less than 500m2, which is the basic area stipulated in the ordinance of this case. Meanwhile, in the case of the management consent, the ordinance of this case calculated the required area based on 35 to 50m2 when the working number was "5m2 or less," but in fact, the waste disposal facility is operated only on the basis of the number of persons significantly falling short of the above standard, such as the above table. In particular, there is no circumstance to deem that the operation of the above waste disposal facility causes any lack of the "management Dong and sub-dong and other facilities" or any lack of working number.

(c)in the first instance judgment;

1) Each “taxise creation cost” of the 3rd and 10th and below the 12th and below is considered as “housing site creation cost”;

2) Each “Seoul Deputy Director” of heading 15, 16, 18, 20, 5-2, 5-2, 4, 13-13, 14-13, 13, 17, 20, 15-15, 11, 13, 18, 19-4, 7, 8, and 11-2, 5-2, 5-2, 13-2, 14-2, 15-2, 18-2, 4, and

3) For the purpose of applying the scale index in Part 6, paragraph 4, “a scale index”;

4) From the 16th day to the 2nd day of the 3th to the 17th day of the 17th day “The economic and environmental disadvantages, etc. that a neighboring resident is entitled to receive through the installation of a waste disposal facility, are the same as the market for the installation of the facility on its own behalf or on behalf of the project implementer. However, the purport of the law that imposes an obligation on the market for the installation of a waste disposal facility on behalf of the project implementer in addition to the waste disposal facility when the market, etc. installs the facility on behalf of the project implementer to compensate for the disadvantages to the neighboring residents by imposing an obligation to install the facility on behalf of the project implementer.” It is unreasonable that the economic and environmental disadvantages, etc. that a neighboring resident is entitled to receive through

each class shall have been done.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The above documentary evidence appears to indicate the present status of the waste disposal facilities at Jeonju-si around March 2016, 2016, which was submitted by the Defendant to the order to prepare for tin as of January 29, 2016 of this Court, as a documentary evidence from March 14, 2016.

Note 2) The same content as the instant Municipal Ordinance (see Evidence 1).

Note 3) As a result of the fact-finding on the Jeju Market, the fact-finding on the Jeju Market was sent to the effect that the capacity of the waste incineration facilities on the side of the Jeju Market was “2.4km/day.” However, according to the Ministry of Environment’s “The Nationwide Waste Generation and Disposal Status (2013)”, the volume of the waste facilities on the 2013 anniversary of the Jeju Market was indicated as “3 tons/day” (see evidence 9 No. 6 pages). In light of the fact that the volume of the waste facilities on the 2013 Market at the Jeju City was indicated as “three tons/day,” the content of the fact-finding reply, “2.

Note 4) However, although no "Paridong" exists, the third Deputy Director (the area omitted) sent a reply to the fact that he/she had the content that he/she had the “Paridong” (see the Defendant’s written opinion on the fact-finding request in the response of May 9, 2016).