In a case where the Mayor of A determined and publicly notified the affected neighboring area due to the installation of waste disposal facilities (the first place), but notified the extension of the designation period while maintaining the same scope of the affected neighboring area whose designation period expires (the second and third places), and residents living in the neighborhood sought revocation of the third public notice, the case holding that the third public notice was unlawful on the ground that there was a defect in failing to comply with the procedures prescribed by statutes

In a case where the Mayor of Party A determined and publicly announced the affected neighboring area due to the installation of waste disposal facilities (the first), and announced twice to extend the designated period while maintaining the same scope of the affected neighboring area whose designated period expires (the second and third first announcement), and sought revocation of the third public announcement, the case held that the third public announcement was unlawful on the ground that the third public announcement did not follow the procedure of the third public announcement on the grounds that the period of designation of the affected neighboring area is an essential element of the determination and public announcement of the affected neighboring area, and that the third public announcement should be deemed to be an essential element of the determination and public announcement of the affected adjacent area unless there are special circumstances, and that the third public announcement should be deemed to be a disposition separate from the second public announcement and the second public announcement, and thus, the third public announcement was deemed to have been a disposition separate from the first public announcement and the second public announcement, and thus, the third public announcement did not follow the procedure of the third public announcement.

Articles 17 and 17-2 of the former Act on Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance, etc. to Their Environs (Amended by Act No. 12077, Aug. 13, 2013); Articles 17 and 18 [Attached Table 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance, etc. to their Environs (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23700, Mar. 30, 2012)

See Attached Table 1 (Law Firm Chang, Attorney Park Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon Market

April 4, 2014

1. The Defendant’s notification and disposition of the determination of the affected adjacent areas of the Handong Waste Treatment Facility on January 3, 2013 (No. 2013-13 of the Chuncheon City Notice) shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is an institution that has installed the instant facilities with a total business area of 179,390 square meters and the area of buried 121,901 square meters and the area of buried facilities (hereinafter “instant facilities”). The Plaintiffs are residents of Chuncheon-si ( Address 2 omitted) located near the instant facilities (hereinafter “instant area”).

B. On May 2, 1997, the Defendant determined the affected neighboring areas following the installation of the instant facilities as follows, and publicly notified the affected neighboring areas by the notification of Chuncheon City No. 1997-92 (hereinafter “the first notification”).

The size of ○○ in the main body: 121,90 square meters - the landfill area: 121,90 square meters, banks: 14,680 square meters, and 14,680 square meters, and 9,856 square meters: Access roads: 5,425 square meters, outside the earth: 2,452 square meters, and other adjacent areas: 25,076 square meters: 25,072 square meters: From 1998 to 2011 (14 years): 6.57 square meters (the adjacent areas of 00 square meters): 6.57 square meters [the adjacent areas of 00 square meters: 20 square meters in the new Dong-dong, Madong-dong, Ma-dong, 300 square meters, 14,680 square meters in the area of indirect impact: 200 square meters in the area of Macheon-dong, Gyeongcheon-dong, 300 square meters in the area.

C. On January 1, 2012, the period designated in the first announcement expired, the Defendant, while maintaining the scope of the affected neighboring areas according to the instant facilities, decided to extend the designated period of the affected neighboring areas of the instant facilities in the same same manner as the original announcement, and publicly announced the extension thereof as follows (hereinafter “the second announcement”).

The scale of ○○ in the main sentence: 200,529 square meters - The area for reclamation: 143,040 square meters, embankments: 14,680 square meters, and 9,680 square meters: Access roads: 5,425 square meters, outside the earth: 2,452 square meters, and other areas: 25,076 square meters: the initial period of designation from 1998 to 2012: the initial period of designation from 1998 to 2012 - The alteration of 1998 to 2011: the extension of the period of designation of the affected adjacent areas to the blood waste treatment facilities in consideration of the expiration of the determination and public notice of the affected areas, and the extension of the period of designation of the affected areas of the re-inspection facilities in consideration of the re-inspection service period.

D. On January 3, 2013, the period designated for extension in the second announcement expired, the Defendant, while maintaining the scope of the affected neighboring areas according to the instant facilities in the same same manner as the original announcement, again made a decision on the affected neighboring areas of the instant facilities and announced it as follows (hereinafter “instant announcement”).

The size of ○ in the main sentence: 200,529 square meters: The period of designation from 1998 to 200 square meters: the initial period of designation from 1998 to 31 December 2012: From 1998 to 31, 2012: Change: (Adjustment when there is a change in environmental impact) - The period of extension of the adjacent area: the expiration of the period of designation.

E. On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the fact that the Plaintiffs were residents in the affected neighboring areas of the instant facility, and submitted an application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim to seek revocation of the instant public notice on November 20, 2013. The instant court permitted modification of the lawsuit on April 24, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 19, and 20, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

(a) Whether the period for filing a lawsuit has expired: Illegal;

1) The defendant's assertion

Where it is intended to dispute the illegality of a public notice given to many unspecified persons as other parties, a revocation lawsuit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date the public notice takes effect, and when the previous lawsuit is withdrawn and the new lawsuit is changed, determination as to whether the period for filing a lawsuit against a new lawsuit is complied with shall be based on the time the lawsuit is changed. As the plaintiff changed the lawsuit on November 20, 2013, which was 90 days from the date the public notice of this case takes effect, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it exceeds the period for filing the

2) Determination

Except as otherwise provided for in the proviso of Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the party to the disposition becomes aware of the cause of revocation, etc., and in cases of an administrative disposition by ordinary public notice or public notice, the validity of such disposition is uniformly applied to many and unspecified persons. Thus, a person who has an interest in such administrative disposition shall be deemed to have known that there was an administrative disposition on the date on which the public notice takes effect, regardless of whether he/she was actually aware of the fact that public notice or public notice was made (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du3847, Apr. 14, 2006). In cases of a public notice document to inform the general public of certain matters, except as otherwise provided for in the document, it takes effect five days after the public notice or public notice becomes effective (Article 7 subparag. 3 and the proviso of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Regulations). Meanwhile, since a subsequent change is made to a party lawsuit after filing a revocation lawsuit, it shall be deemed to have been legitimate 293 years.

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff submitted the “application for change of claim and cause of claim” on November 20, 2013, but the content of the claim is changed to an appeal litigation seeking revocation of the instant public notice, which does not change the basis of the claim, after filing a party lawsuit seeking confirmation that the Plaintiff was a resident within the affected neighboring area of the instant facility, and the instant public notice was posted in the Official Gazette on January 3, 2013 and came into force on January 8, 2013. As such, insofar as the Plaintiff filed the first party lawsuit on March 11, 2013, which is within 90 days from the effective date of the instant public notice, the period for filing the modified public notice should also be deemed to have been observed. Accordingly, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

(b) Whether a person has standing to sue: positive;

1) The defendant's assertion

According to the environmental impact investigation conducted by the defendant, the establishment and operation of the facility of this case could infringe on the environmental interest of the plaintiffs residing in the area of this case. Thus, there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the notification of this case.

2) Determination

According to Articles 17 and 17-2 of the former Act on the Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance, etc. to their Environs (amended by Act No. 12077, Aug. 13, 2013; hereinafter “former Waste Management Act”), and Articles 17 and 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance, etc. to their Environs (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23700, Mar. 30, 2012; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Waste Management Act”), an agency installing waste disposal facilities shall determine and publicly notify the area affected environmentally due to the installation and operation of the waste disposal facilities within two years from the date of announcement of the plan for installation of the waste disposal facilities. In order for an agency installing the waste disposal facilities to determine and publicly notify the affected area, the residents support council shall have a specialized research institute selected to investigate the environmental impact and collect the results thereof, and the residents support council shall have an impact on the area directly affected by the residents/Gun council within two kilometers of the affected area.

The purport of the above-mentioned provision is to protect individual interests that can live in a pleasant environment without environmental damage exceeding the tolerance limit compared to the prior to the implementation of the project by residents in the sphere of direct and significant impact on the business of installing a waste landfill, or by residents in the sphere of indirect and indirect influence within two kilometers from the boundary of the waste landfill. Such environmental benefits are direct and specific interests that are individually protected for each individual (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13489, Mar. 11, 2005). Meanwhile, the determination and announcement of the affected neighboring areas is to determine the affected neighboring areas as the affected neighboring areas and to compensate the residents for environmental damage that may be caused by the installation and operation of the waste landfill, and to collect opinions of the residents, and thus, it is different from the determination and announcement of the location of the waste landfill area where the waste landfill facilities are located within two kilometers from the boundary of the waste landfill area. Thus, even if not designated as the indirectly affected areas, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that there exist interests within the boundary of the entire affected areas cannot be asserted within 2 km from the boundary area.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) procedural defects;

On December 31, 2011, the first public notice lost its effect upon the expiration of the designation period, and the second public notice also lost its effect upon the expiration of the designation period on December 31, 2012. Therefore, the Defendant should have determined the affected adjacent areas by establishing a residents support council and conducting an environmental impact assessment in accordance with the procedures prescribed in Article 17 of the former Waste Management Act. Therefore, the instant public notice, which decided the affected adjacent areas without conducting an environmental impact assessment according to the intention of the residents support council constituted at the time of the first public notice, is unlawful.

2) Violation of the principle of equality

The instant area was excluded from the subject of consultation in the process of determining the location of the instant facility, and the Plaintiffs were excluded from the subject of environmental impact assessment without presenting any opinion at the stage of investigating the environmental impact of specialized research institutes except for the Plaintiffs, and as a result, the instant announcement was in violation of the principle of equality and was thus unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

1) First, we examine whether there is a procedural defect in the instant notice.

Articles 17 and 17-2 of the former Waste Management Act, Articles 17 and 18 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Waste Management Act, and 18 [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Waste Management Act shall be determined and publicly announced by an agency installing waste disposal facilities within two years from the date on which the plan for installing waste disposal facilities has been publicly announced, and where it is recognized that there is a change in environmental impact after the determination and public announcement, the agency installing waste disposal facilities may adjust and publicly notify the affected area. Meanwhile, matters to be included in the above public announcement include “the location, scale and details of waste disposal facilities, operation period of waste disposal facilities, location, area, and effective period of the affected area”, etc. Meanwhile, in order for an agency installing waste disposal facilities to determine and publicly announce the affected area, it shall have a specialized research institute selected by the Resident Support Consultative Body to investigate the environmental impact and gather the results thereof: Provided, That where the Resident Support Consultative Body deems it unnecessary to investigate the environmental impact of the surrounding area, it may

The defendant asserts that the second public notice and the second public notice are modified by extending only the period of the first public notice, and that it is not a disposition different from the first public notice.

① However, the Defendant does not have any particular legal basis for extending the period as above; ② The designation period of the affected neighboring areas constitutes an essential element of the determination and announcement of the affected neighboring areas; barring any special circumstance, where an administrative agency takes administrative dispositions by setting the period, it shall be deemed that the first announcement has expired due to the expiration of the designation period of the affected neighboring areas as stipulated in the first announcement; ③ The operation period of the affected neighboring areas must also be indicated to the effect that the degree of environmental impact on the surrounding areas may vary according to the duration of the waste disposal facilities and the scope of the affected adjacent areas may vary; ④ The alteration of the affected neighboring areas may not be deemed to have occurred in the affected neighboring areas without any restriction after the first determination and announcement of the affected neighboring areas; ④ The alteration of the affected adjacent areas in the affected adjacent areas should be deemed to have been newly announced in accordance with the former Enforcement Decree of the Resident Support Act, which does not have the effect of new announcement prior to the expiration of the designation period of the affected adjacent areas.

2) Therefore, without having to further examine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant public notice is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] Omitted

[Attachment 2] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kang Sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Jin-jin