해외 바카라 사이트

1. Overview of the case

​
The plaintiff operates a waste-to-energy plant that produces steam by incinerating solid fuel products made from waste materials with high calorific value. The plaintiff applied for a permit to occupy and use a road in Chungju-si to supply the produced steam to a neighboring business. Local civil social organizations strongly expressed their opposition to the permit application through rallies, claiming infringement of environmental rights and health rights. In this case, the city government of Chungju rejected the application for the permit on the grounds of (1) public interest infringement on environmental and health rights, (2) resident acceptability, and (3) stability issues with the city gas pipelines.

​

​2. Our argument and role

​
On behalf of the plaintiff, we (attorneys in charge: Baek Chang-won, and Ahn Sun-young) argued that the facility operated by the plaintiff was licensed as 해외 바카라 사이트 air emission facility by the Ministry of Environment and had been discharging environmental pollutants only within the permitted standards. We specifically argued and proved that even if the produced steam was supplied to a neighboring business, no new infringement of environmental rights and health rights would occur; rather, we argued that the reason given by Chungju-si, concern for "public interest infringement of environmental rights and health rights," was a vague and abstract reason without any objective proof, and that the reason was illegal and unreasonable.

​
Furthermore, we pointed out that even if it is a discretionary act, the structure of the road, traffic communication, and traffic safety are the matters that should be examined in the process of granting the permit, and whether or not the residents object cannot be a legitimate reason for rejection. We also argued. "Discretionary acts are also subject to control of discretion, so the plaintiff should have disposed of the case by properly comparing and weighing public interest and private interest, but when civil organizations expressed their opposition, the plaintiff disposed of the case through a bureaucratic process without properly comparing and weighing public interest and private interest". At the same time, we specifically argued and proved how the plaintiff came to apply for the permit and the disadvantages suffered by the plaintiff if the permit was rejected, as well as social and economic losses (such as damages to suppliers and energy savings and carbon neutrality through the utilization of waste heat energy).

​
Above all, we analyzed cases that were similar in structure and issues to this case (cases in which defendants had refused to grant permits on the grounds that they were opposed by civil society organizations and residents claiming environmental and health rights but they had lost the cases) and argued specifically about the illegality and unfairness of the disposition made in this case.

​
Lastly, "safety issues related to city gas pipelines" was a reason added after the disposition had been made, and we argued that "the basic facts are not the same as the original reason, so the addition of the reason cannot be allowed. We also submitted 해외 바카라 사이트 expert's opinion, claiming that there was no problem with the safety of the city gas pipelines.

​

​3. The court's judgment

​
Both the first instance and appellate courts accepted the plaintiff's arguments, stating, "The defendant vaguely pointed out that there is a great controversy about the harmfulness of environmental pollution such as pollutants and fine dust generated during the process of burning solid fuels, but failed to provide specific data on the extent of environmental pollution to be caused by the permit. It is illegal to reject an application for a permit just on the basis of a circumstance where there are complaints from residents, as it has no basis in the 해외 바카라 사이트. The defendant's original reason for rejection points out the controversy over the harmfulness of environmental pollution, while the safety issue with the city gas pipelines was to point out the safety of the construction, so the basic facts cannot be considered the same. Therefore, the court ruled that the addition of the reason for rejection was not allowed”. The court rendered the decision to cancel the disposition in this case.

​

□ Attorney in charge: Baek Chang-won and 해외 바카라 사이트 Sun-young