안전 바카라사이트

①The party represented by Barun

A waste treatment service provider (the “plaintiff”)

​

②Case background

The waste treatment project subject to this case has been predetermined from the time of initial approval to the present time under the industrial complex management plan, which was developed pursuant to the Industrial Complex Planning and Industrial Concentration Act established under a special act for simplification of permission and licensing procedures regarding industrial complexes, and a decision on the installation of facilities, which was made accordingly, has maintained unchanged.

The plaintiff had filed for designation as a party implementing the project with a competent administrative authority (the “defendant”) under the national land planning related statutes. The defendant had determined to reject the plaintiff’s application for designation on the grounds that (i) the facilities would have a hazardous effect on environment, (ii) there had been no necessity to install the facilities, (iii) the financing plan submitted by the plaintiff had not been specific enough for the defendant to accept it, (안전 바카라사이트) the plaintiff had failed to develop a measure to respond to complaints from the public; and (v) the deliberation decision made by the Complaint Mediation Commission had not been favorable to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had filed a suit to seek the cancellation of the defendant’s determination, asserting that the defendant had misunderstood the facts, and had violated the principles of trust and proportion and eventually had committed illegality by abusing or deviating from discretionary power given to it. The district court had dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.

③Lawsuit and our role

Barun represented the plaintiff in the appeal case.

1) Our attorneys persistently argued that the industrial complex produced more than 20,000 tons of waste, and therefore the waste landfill facilities were a required facility under the Waste Facility Promotion Act. In order to substantiate the argument, they provided the court with the accurate analysis of related statutes and applied for confirmation of facts with diverse related institutions.

2) Our attorneys also argued against the defendant that its authority could be reduced in approving a plan for the implementation of a project under the National Land Planning Act because it was obliged to complied with an industrial complex development plan and a management plan.

3) They also aggressively substantiated that there was no environmental concern through on-site evaluations of the similar waste treatment facilities and industrial complexes as well as confirmation of facts received from environmental impact evaluation experts.

4) Emphasizing that it was predetermined that the facilities would be installed in the industrial complex, the attorneys asserted that the defendant’s determination was illegal because it violated the principle of trust and the principle of proportion.

Accepting our arguments, the court reversed the district court’s decision and rendered the decision that the claims made by the plaintiff be accepted.

The Deajeon High Court accepted all the arguments made by Barun and cancelled the district court’s decision and the defendant’s determination on the following grounds: the basis of the determination presented by the defendant could not be regarded that they were legal grounds to reject the application of the plaintiff, the defendant failed to provide reasonable basis regarding its assertion that the application was inappropriate to specifically realize the industrial complex plan and the contents of the facilities determined in the decision on the planned facilities, and therefore, the defendant’s determination was an illegal one deviating from discretionary power given to it, and even if it was assumed that there were grounds for the defendant to make the determination, it was difficult for the court to see that public benefits, which could be earned from the determination, were greater than losses, which could be inflicted to the plaintiff.

Recently, there has been an increasing necessity for new waste treatment facilities with the existing facilities reporting the lack of capacity. However, there are a lot of local autonomous governments that oppose to the installation of waste treatment facilities on the ground of complaints lodged by residents or concern over environmental harm.

The decision above has implications in that (i) in determining whether the designation of a party implementing a project to develop a planned facility and the implementation plan thereof under the National Land Planning Act is appropriate, an administrative agency should determine on the basis that the details of the application are suitable for the concrete realization of the decision of the industrial complex plan, the industrial complex management basic plan, and the determination of the planned facilities, and if the application is rejected even though there is no reasonable ground to deny its suitability, it is reasonable to assume that the rejection is outside the scope of the discretionary power granted to the administrative agency, and (ii) in particular, with regard to the discretionary judgment of the administrative agency on concerns about environmental pollution, the court makes it clear that rejecting the installation of a waste treatment facility included in an industrial complex plan just on the basis of the vague possibility of or the risk to the natural and residential environment of the waste treatment facility itself without specifically questioning the contents of the plan will not be justifiable.