新着情報

Lee & Ko successfully represented Company A, a food waste treatment company, in a lawsuit seeking to revoke excess effluent charges of approximately KRW 276.6 billion (approx. USD 200 million), securing a favorable ruling for the client.

Investigative authorities alleged that Company A, which had obtained a waste treatment business license and operated discharge facilities, illegally discharged wastewater by installing a bypass pipe in the food waste treatment process, allowing wastewater to flow out without passing through the final discharge point. Consequently, both Company A and its executives were indicted. Subsequently, relying entirely on the investigation's findings, the administrative authority imposed an unprecedented KRW 276.6 billion in excess effluent charges, alleging that Company A discharged water pollutants exceeding the permissible concentration limits. Meanwhile, Company A and its executives had already been convicted in the first instance of the related criminal case, which is currently under appeal.

Under the Water Environment Conservation Act, the amount of excess effluent charges is calculated based on the concentration level exceeding permissible limits, the volume of discharge, and the operational days. Lee & Ko meticulously analyzed the grounds for the administrative authority’s calculation of the charges and successfully argued and proved the following:
    1. The excess pollutant concentration level should have been calculated based on wastewater discharged after being combined with wastewater treated through the facility, not based on samples collected from the bypass pipe. The administrative authority’s reliance on samples from the bypass pipe was therefore unlawful.
    2. The volume of discharge used in the calculation was based on unreliable data, leading to errors.

This case is a landmark victory, overturning the largest charges ever imposed in Korea, showcasing the expertise and seasoned experience of Lee & Ko’s Environmental Group. Furthermore, the case serves as a powerful reminder that companies failing to prioritize environmental responsibility risk facing astronomical penalties. At the same time, it underscores the importance of regulatory sanctions to be imposed strictly in accordance with clear legal standards and procedures. 

Lee & Ko successfully represented Company B in a lawsuit seeking to revoke a local government’s rejection of its proposal for a district management plan amendment to install a medical waste incineration facility. The court ruled in favor of Company B, overturning the local government’s decision.

The plaintiff, Company B, is a medical waste collection and transportation company. To establish the incineration facility, the company conducted a small-scale environmental impact assessment (EIA), which concluded that the project would have “no or minimal negative environmental impact.” Based on this, Company B received confirmation of compliance with the Waste Management Act from the Regional Environmental Office. Subsequently, the company submitted a proposal for a district management plan amendment under the Framework Act on the National Land to the local government. Despite the positive results of the EIA, the local government rejected the proposal, citing environmental concerns and opposition from local residents.

Lee & Ko advanced the following two compelling arguments.
    1. Rejecting the proposal solely based on opposition or vague concerns from residents without a reasonable and detailed review is unlawful.
    2. The administrative authority’s environmental concerns lacked objective and concrete evidence, failing to overturn the findings of the small-scale EIA.

The court accepted these arguments and annulled the local government’s rejection decision.

Although waste treatment facilities are essential infrastructure for the proper disposal of waste generated by the public, they are often viewed as undesirable due to their association with waste processing. Establishing such facilities requires not only approval from the Regional Environmental Office but also administrative planning approval from the local government where the facility will be located. Administrative planning, such as district management plans, involves broad discretion on the part of local authorities, making it particularly challenging to argue and prove abuse or overreach of that discretion.

This case establishes an important precedent by overturning an unlawful administrative decision aimed at blocking the installation of a waste treatment facility due to local opposition. It serves as a positive example for businesses pursuing essential infrastructure projects while complying with environmental protection measures and adhering to EIA requirements.