Whether there is a benefit in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of revocation in a case where the emission facilities are removed after the permission for installation of noise and vibration emission facilities was revoked (negative)

If it is impossible to operate emission facilities again through the restoration, etc. after the permission for the installation of noise and vibration emission facilities is revoked in some circumstances, it is not subject to the permission for the installation of emission facilities, and even if the revocation of the permission is remaining, there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the above disposal, unless there are special circumstances, even if the permission for the installation of emission facilities is revoked in external form.

Article 18 of the Noise and Vibration Control Act, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The head of Seongbuk-gu (Attorney Kim principal-type, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu6899 delivered on March 16, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff's noise and vibration emission facilities (hereinafter "discharge facilities") exceeded permissible emission levels, but failed to comply with the order of improvement under the Noise and Vibration Control Act, and thus ordered an order of suspension of operation; the plaintiff's act of violation was discovered during the suspension period and thus revoked the permission of closure of emission facilities and the permission of installation of emission facilities; the plaintiff's site for the plaintiff's factory where the emission facilities were installed after the above disposition expired and the extension was not made, but the plaintiff's rejection of the request for return by the head of Seoul Regional Railroad Agency, which is the management agency of the site, the above factory was removed with the above factory due to the removal substitute execution by the head of the Seoul Regional Railroad Agency; and even after the cancellation of the disposition of this case, it was impossible to restore the above emission facilities to its original state before the disposition of this case, and even if the plaintiff can be invoked in the lawsuit against the defendant or can be provided with administrative convenience in the case of transferring the above emission facilities to another area, the court below determined that the disposition of this case does not constitute a factual and economic interest.

If a person is unable to operate an emission facility after the cancellation of permission for the installation of the emission facility because of the removal of the emission facility again in some circumstances, it is not subject to the permission for the installation of the emission facility, and even if the cancellation of permission is remaining in the external form, barring special circumstances, there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the above disposal, so the lawsuit seeking such cancellation is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that there is no direct and specific benefit protected by the law in relation to the cancellation of the disposition of this case is correct, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles. The

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)