Background

• Company A, which operates a comprehensive food waste recycling business, plans to expand its business scale by increasing its recycling capacity in order to increase its operating hours. 
• Since any change of more than one-hundredth of the authorized recycling capacity is subject to a waste recycling business change permit, and the installation of a facility that processes more than 100 tons of food waste per day is subject to environmental impact assessment, Company A submitted an environmental impact assessment preparation report to the competent administrative agency before applying for a waste recycling business change permit.
•  According to the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, Company A's submission of the Environmental Impact Assessment Preparation has the meaning of an application for determination of environmental impact assessment items, but the competent administrative agency refused to review the Environmental Impact Assessment Preparation on the grounds that the capacity of the food waste treatment facility in the jurisdiction is sufficient.
• Meanwhile, Company B, which is also engaged in the comprehensive recycling of food waste, plans to expand its business scale by increasing its recycling capacity.
• Company B also submitted an EIA to the competent administrative authority to conduct an environmental impact assessment procedure prior to applying for a permit to change its waste recycling business, but the competent administrative authority refused to review the EIA on the grounds that the local ordinance restricts the expansion of food waste treatment facilities.

Work Scope

• Review and fine-tune the evaluation items in the EIA.
• Review of the disposability of the decision-making process and the optimal dispute resolution for the administrative agency's refusal to review the environmental impact assessment items based on the submission of the environmental impact assessment preparation.
• Representation in administrative appeals and oral arguments for effective communication

Results and Implication

Contrary to the existing precedent that internal consultations of administrative agencies are not disposable, ELPS clarified that the rejection of the determination of environmental impact assessment items under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act is disposable, and requested a mandatory performance review under the Administrative Review Act for a one-time resolution of the dispute. In addition, during the review process, it was revealed that the decision on environmental impact assessment items was a continuing act and proved that it was illegal for the administrative agency to reject it for reasons other than statutory reasons. As a result of the above arguments, we were granted a favorable decision in the enforcement appeal on behalf of Companies A and B, and Companies A and B were able to successfully proceed with the recycling capacity expansion project.