Supreme Court: "Authority to Review Installation of Odor-Emitting Facilities Granted to Local Government Heads"

Anyang City-Ascon Company Dispute... Conflicting Rulings in 1st and 2nd Trials
Supreme Court: "Jurisdictional Administrative Agency Has Authority to Review Installation and Operation Report"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that the authority to approve the installation and operation reports of odor-emitting facilities lies with the local government heads or relevant administrative authorities.

The Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Min Yoo-sook) announced on the 17th that it overturned the lower court ruling, which had ruled in favor of asphalt concrete manufacturer Company A in its lawsuit against the Mayor of Anyang City seeking cancellation of the rejection of its odor-emitting facility installation report, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

Company A has been operating an asphalt concrete manufacturing plant in Manan-gu, Anyang since 2004, but disputes arose as large apartment complexes were built near the plant, leading to petitions demanding the plant's relocation.

In response, Anyang City designated and announced the drying facilities installed at the plant as odor-emitting facilities subject to reporting under the Odor Prevention Act on June 15, 2017, citing continuous odor complaints from residents and four instances of odor measurements exceeding the standard. Subsequently, Gyeonggi Province issued an order to suspend the use of air pollutant emission facilities in November of the same year.

Company A filed installation and operation reports for odor-emitting facilities twice, in May and July 2018, but Anyang City rejected both reports, prompting Company A to file a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the rejection decisions.

The trial focused on whether the installation and operation report for odor-emitting facilities under the Odor Prevention Act requires approval, and if so, whether the local government head's rejection constitutes an abuse or deviation of discretion, making it unlawful.

The first trial court ruled in favor of Anyang City, stating, "The installation and operation report for odor-emitting facilities requires approval, and the local government head may approve or reject it; the rejection does not constitute an abuse or deviation of discretion."

In contrast, the second trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating, "The installation and operation report for odor-emitting facilities is a self-completing report that does not require approval."

However, the Supreme Court overturned the second trial court's decision, stating, "Considering the reporting procedures and legislative intent stipulated in the Odor Prevention Act and its enforcement decree, the competent administrative authority has the power to review whether to approve the installation and operation report of odor-emitting facilities."

Additionally, the Supreme Court also overturned and remanded the damages lawsuit filed by Company A, which claimed losses due to "19 rounds of intensive inspections and investigations by Anyang City," ruling against the plaintiff.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.