An Owner, etc. of a building with multiple tenants that generates 300 kilograms or more of waste on a daily average does not qualify as a business waste generator required to report under Article 17 (2) of the Wastes Control Act.

First, Article 2 (3) of the Wastes Control Act defines "business waste" as waste generated at a business site that installs and operates emission facilities under the Clean Air Conservation Act, etc. Article 17 (1) stipulates the obligations of business operators who generate business waste, and Paragraph 2 stipulates the reporting of the type and volume of such waste. The waste management laws and regulations apply regulations related to business waste based on the individual business entity that "generates" the waste.

Generally, a "business operator" refers to a person who manages a business at a business site2), and a "business waste generator" refers to a person who emits waste generated at their own business site as a result of their business activities3). The Owner, etc. of a building who leases space to individual business operators merely provides the premises; they do not engage in the actual business activities that serve as the root cause of waste generation. Therefore, unless there is an explicit provision in the waste management laws requiring the Owner, etc. to process waste "jointly" or "collectively," it is difficult to view the Owner, etc. as a business waste generator subject to the reporting requirement under Article 17 (2).

Furthermore, the Wastes Control Act distinguishes between "business waste" (Article 2 (3)) and "municipal waste" (Article 2 (2)), which is waste other than business waste. While municipal waste is subject to disposal obligations imposed on the Mayor of a Special Self-Governing City, etc. (Article 14 (1)), business waste requires the generating business operator to fulfill obligations such as verifying whether the waste is designated waste (Article 17 (1) 1) and ensuring treatment in compliance with disposal standards and methods (Article 17 (1) 1-2). Business operators are required to treat the waste themselves or entrust it to a licensed waste treatment operator (Article 18 (1)). Thus, the subjects and methods of treatment vary depending on the type of waste.

In cases where a single building hosts multiple tenants, the subject and method of treatment may differ depending on the type of waste generated by each individual business. Therefore, aggregating the waste generated by individual tenants merely because they occupy the same building to impose a reporting obligation on the Owner, etc. under Article 17 (2) does not align with the systemic structure of the waste management regulations.

In addition, the "Report Form for Business Waste Generator" (Form No. 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act) requires the reporter to provide "Trade Name" and "Business Registration Number," and to specify information such as "Industry Type," "Main Raw Materials and Consumption," "Main Products and Production Volume," and "Manufacturing Process" in the current status section. It also requires a plan for the discharge and treatment of business waste. This indicates that the report requires details regarding the nature of the business—such as production and manufacturing processes—which supports the interpretation that the entity actually operating the business is the intended party to be classified as the business waste generator.

Lastly, administrative regulations that serve as the basis for punitive administrative actions must be interpreted and applied strictly, and should not be extended or applied by analogy to the detriment of the counterparty4). Since Article 68 (1) 1-4 of the Wastes Control Act prescribes administrative fines for those who fail to report or provide false reports in violation of Article 17 (2), interpreting the law to mandate that an Owner, etc. of a building generating 300kg or more of waste daily must report is an expansion of the scope of regulation and punitive targets without explicit legal basis or reasonable grounds. This factor must also be considered in interpreting this matter.

Therefore, an Owner, etc. of a building with multiple tenants that generates 300 kilograms or more of waste on a daily average does not qualify as a business waste generator required to report under Article 17 (2) of the Wastes Control Act.

In this case, the hearing process for residents, businesses, and experts under Article 7 of the Regional Special Zones Act cannot be omitted pursuant to the proviso of Article 16, Paragraph 1 of the same Act.

First, Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Regional Special Zones Act stipulates that the approval of a "Specialized Zone Plan" is deemed granted upon the designation and public notice of a Specialized Zone. Articles 62 and 63 of the Act require the inclusion of a "Specialized Zone Land Use Plan"—which encompasses plans for the designation and modification of zoning districts—within the Specialized Zone Plan if effective land use is required. Furthermore, Article 64, Paragraph 1 provides that upon approval of a Specialized Zone Plan containing such a land use plan, the decision on urban/county management plans under the "National Land Planning and Utilization Act" is deemed to have been made. Consequently, the designation of a Specialized Zone results in the application of building restrictions and other regulations⁴⁾ within the designated zones.

In other words, while the designation of a Specialized Zone grants regulatory exceptions to the project operator, it also imposes significant and direct restrictions on the property rights of local residents within the zone, such as limitations on the use and scale of land and buildings. Even if the amendment to the Specialized Zone Plan is limited to extending the designation period, this not only signifies an extension of the zone's duration but also extends the effective period of the applied regulatory exceptions. This effectively forces residents to remain under a new legal status or maintains existing property right restrictions for the extended period, thereby directly affecting their interests.

Therefore, in this case, the amendment to the Specialized Zone Plan must be considered to include the regulatory exceptions under Articles 62 through 65 of the Regional Special Zones Act. It is difficult to conclude that this situation qualifies for the omission of the hearing process under the proviso of Article 16, Paragraph 1.

The proviso of Article 16, Paragraph 1 was enacted to facilitate the efficient implementation of projects by allowing for the omission of public hearings only when the amendments do not restrict the property rights of local residents or do not involve land use regulatory exceptions under the Act⁵⁾. Interpreting this provision to allow the omission of hearings when an extension of the designation period effectively extends the duration of regulatory exceptions under Articles 62 through 65 would contradict the legislative intent of Article 16, Paragraph 1, which strictly limits the exception to cases where the interests of residents are not impacted.

Accordingly, the process for hearing the opinions of residents, businesses, and experts cannot be omitted in this case.

An appraisal firm that has performed the preparation of the land and property survey report under Article 14 of the Land Compensation Act may also perform the compensation appraisal for the same land and property under Article 68.

First, under Article 68, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Land Compensation Act, a project operator is required to select three appraisal firms (or two in cases where the local government or landowners fail to provide recommendations) to determine the compensation amount. In this process, the operator must include firms recommended by the local government and the landowners. While Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulates procedural guidelines for such recommendations, the Land Compensation Act does not explicitly establish separate eligibility criteria for the selection of appraisal firms for compensation valuation.

However, according to Article 8 of the Framework Act on Administrative Procedures (Principle of the Rule of Law), any restriction on rights must be grounded in law. Limiting the professional scope of an appraisal firm requires an explicit legal basis. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that a firm is disqualified from compensation appraisal simply because it previously prepared the land and property survey report, absent a clear legislative provision.

Meanwhile, Article 25(2) of the Appraisal Act prohibits tasks where there is a risk of unfairness, such as cases involving their own property. Some argue that because the same party acts as both the "preparer" and "evaluator," the performance of both tasks should be restricted due to the potential for an unfair compensation assessment.

However, the compensation appraisal under Article 68 of the Land Compensation Act is a process of determining the economic value of land and property and expressing it as a monetary figure⁶⁾, whereas the preparation of the survey report under Article 14 is a process of establishing objective facts and status, such as location, area, and ownership rights⁷⁾. As the latter serves merely as a factual premise for the appraisal rather than a judgment of value, it is difficult to conclude that a conflict of interest arises simply because the same entity performs both tasks. Furthermore, Article 3 of the Appraisal Act and other relevant provisions provide independent principles and standards to ensure fairness and objectivity in appraisals. Thus, there is no sufficient basis to restrict an appraisal firm from performing a compensation appraisal merely because it previously prepared the survey report for the same land and property.

Furthermore, under Article 68, Paragraph 1 of the Land Compensation Act, the project operator must appoint multiple appraisal firms and include those recommended by the landowners. According to Article 16, Paragraph 6 of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act, the final compensation amount is based on the arithmetic mean of the values assessed by all appointed firms. Therefore, even if a firm that prepared the survey report is appointed for appraisal, their assessment does not hold absolute influence over the final compensation calculation. This should be taken into account when interpreting this matter.

Accordingly, an appraisal firm that has prepared the land and property survey report under Article 14 of the Land Compensation Act is not legally restricted from performing the compensation appraisal under Article 68..

When filing a building report that is deemed to constitute permission for development activities pursuant to Article 14(2) and Article 11(5)3 of the Building Act, the Documents Related to Permission for Development Activities must be submitted.

First, pursuant to Article 24(1) of the General Act on Public Administration, the term "deemed authorization or permission" refers to a system under which obtaining a single authorization or permission is regarded as having obtained the various related authorizations or permissions thereto, as prescribed by statute. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that an applicant seeking deemed authorization or permission must, when applying for the principal authorization or permission, concurrently submit the documents required for the related authorizations or permissions. The purpose of the deemed authorization or permission system is to consolidate the application channel with the administrative agency having jurisdiction over the principal authorization or permission and to streamline the procedure; it is not intended to exclude any and all substantive review of the requirements for each individual authorization or permission under the relevant statutes (footnote: see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du39590, rendered on July 9, 2015). Accordingly, the substantive requirements pertaining to a deemed authorization or permission must be assessed in accordance with the statutes governing such deemed authorization or permission. Article 14(1) of the Building Act provides that, even with respect to a building subject to building permit requirements, where the building qualifies as a small-scale structure—such as a building with a total floor area of 100 square meters or less (footnote: see Article 14(1)5 of the Building Act and Article 11(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act)—the filing of a report shall be deemed equivalent to obtaining a building permit. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the provisions concerning deemed authorization or permission for building permits (Article 11(5)) and the provisions concerning consultation (Article 11(6)) shall apply mutatis mutandis to building reports. Furthermore, Article 12(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act requires any person intending to file a building report to submit the application forms and supporting documents (limited to applicable cases) that are mandatorily required to be submitted under the relevant statutes for the purpose of obtaining the authorizations or permissions, or filing the reports, set forth in each subparagraph of Article 11(5) of the same Act. Accordingly, when filing a building report under the Building Act that is deemed to constitute permission for development activities, the Documents Related to Permission for Development Activities must also be submitted (footnote: see Ministry of Government Legislation Interpretation Case No. 22-0920, issued on April 14, 2023).

In addition, the Building Act is a statute enacted to enhance the safety and functionality of buildings by prescribing matters such as the building site and structure of buildings (Article 1 of the Building Act), and the site plan, floor plan, elevation drawings, and sectional drawings submitted at the time of filing a building report are documents intended for the review of the requirements for the building report concerning the building itself. By contrast, the National Land Planning Act is a statute that prescribes matters necessary for the formulation and implementation of plans for the use, development, and conservation of national land (Article 1 of the National Land Planning Act), and the Documents Related to Permission for Development Activities—such as on-site survey drawings and longitudinal/cross-sectional drawings (footnote: see Annex 1 of the Operational Guidelines for Permission for Development Activities (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Directive No. 1375), among others)—are documents intended for the review of, among other matters, whether the relevant land has undergone a change in its form and quality such that it is suitable for the construction of a building (footnote: see Supreme Court Decision 2019Du31839, rendered on July 23, 2020). Since a building report under Article 14 of the Building Act and permission for development activities under Article 56 of the National Land Planning Act differ in their legislative purposes and the legal interests they seek to protect, the proviso to Article 57(1) of the National Land Planning Act, which provides that application documents shall be submitted in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Building Act, cannot reasonably be interpreted as obviating the requirement to submit the application documents related to permission for development activities.

Accordingly, when filing a building report that is deemed to constitute permission for development activities pursuant to Article 14(2) and Article 11(5)3 of the Building Act, the Documents Related to Permission for Development Activities must be submitted.

Where a domestic or international air operator submitted an application for modification of license to modify its trade name or address pursuant to Article 8 (7) of the Enforcement Rules of the Aviation Business Act, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport is not required to review whether the requirements for the license are met and whether the grounds for disqualification apply, which have no relevance to the trade name and address it intends to change pursuant to Article 8 (9) of the same Act.

Under Article 8 (7) of the Enforcement Rules of the Aviation Business Act, it is prescribed that where a domestic or international air operator intends to modify the details of the license such as trade name and address pursuant to Article 7 (6) of the same Act, an application form for modification of license in attached Form no. 6 and documents certifying the modifications should be submitted to the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, thus only stipulating that the documents certifying the details of modification are to be submitted by the applicant in addition to the application form. It can be interpreted that Article 8 (9) of the same Enforcement Rules regulates that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall review whether the requirements for the license are met and whether the grounds for disqualification apply and issue a new license if the application is appropriate in order to verify whether the application for modification satisfies the requirements for the license, etc. Therefore, if a domestic or international air operator made an application for modification of license to modify the trade name or address of the license, it will suffice for the same Minister to check whether the details of the license to be modified meets the requirements for the license and whether the grounds for disqualification apply, and it is unnecessary for him/her to review whether the requirements for the license are met and whether the grounds for disqualification apply. 

And generally, the purpose of allowing modification of license is to ensure the efficiency of the administrative procedure and enhance the convenience of civil petitioners by requiring that only the modified contents be reported or licensed where there are partial modifications of the details of a license that remains identical in nature because if it is required to obtain a new license when there is a need to change the details of the current license under the premise that if the license requirements such as facility standards, human resources standards, etc. which were met at the time of obtaining the license have changed, the modified license remains identical to the existing license and continuously valid, it will be inefficient to undergo the authorities’ administrative procedures including review of the unchanged detailed of the license as well as the modified details. In this regard, it will be in alignment with the purpose of modification of license to deem that only the matters related to the details of the license to be modified should be reviewed when reviewing a modification of license.

In addition, the administrative regulations that form the basis of restrictive administrative acts should be strictly interpreted and applied, and should not be extensively or analogically interpreted in a manner that is excessively disadvantageous to the counterpart of the administrative act. However, Article 8 (9) of the Enforcement Rules of the Aviation Business Act prescribes that where an air operator applied for modification of license, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport should review whether the standards for the license are met or whether the operator falls under the standards for disqualification, and then shall issue a new license when the application is deemed appropriate, which means that the Act regulates that the matters regarding the details of the license to be modified should be reviewed. However, if it is interpreted that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport should also review whether the standards for license issuance unrelated to the details to be modified are met or whether the causes for disqualification apply, the domestic and international air operator will bear the burden of receiving a review on whether the abovementioned standards are met and causes apply, which is an excessively extensive interpretation that is disadvantageous to domestic and international air operators, and therefore deemed inappropriate. 

In conclusion, where a domestic or international air operator submitted an application for change of license to change its trade name or address, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport is not required to review whether the requirements for the license are met and whether the grounds for disqualification apply, which have no relevance to the trade name and address it intends to change.

Where a domestic company which has a foreigner as an executive intends to apply for registration or registration of change of establishment and operation of private education institutes pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act, it cannot be requested that the superintendent of education mandatorily submit a certificate of fact on foreign resident registration which is not prescribed by the above Act. 

Under Article 6 (2) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act which regulates the basic matters regarding civil petitions treatment, it is prescribed that except in cases falling under provisions of statutes or regulations or by delegation, no head of an administrative agency shall tighten procedures, etc. for treatment of civil petitions. And Article 10 (1) of the same Act stipulates that when the head of an administrative agency receives and treats a civil petition, he or she shall not request that the relevant civil petitioner submit additional documents other than the required documents prescribed by the relevant statutes or regulations, etc. In this regard, it cannot be deemed that documents that are not prescribed by a specific regulation excluding attachments that are prescribed by law can be demanded to be submitted by the applicant. 

However, where intending to establish and operate a private education institute, Article 3 (2) of the Enforcement Rules of the Private Teaching Institutes Act prescribes that the attachments that should be submitted along with the application form include the rules of the institute, facilities floor plan, articles of association and a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors on establishment of the institute (only where a corporation is establishing a private education institute) and a document certifying the rights to use the facilities to be used as the place of teaching, but does not regulate that the certification of fact on foreign resident registration of a foreign executive should be submitted as well. Therefore, in this case, it cannot be interpreted that a certification of fact on foreign resident registration must be submitted to the superintendent of education in addition to the documents to be attached as regulated by the Private Teaching Institutes Act. 

In addition, in accordance with the main sentence of Article 31 (1) of the Immigration Act and Article 88 (2) of the same Act, foreigners who have not entered Korea or stayed in Korea for less than 90 days cannot make a foreign resident registration and thus cannot have a certificate of fact on foreign resident registration issued. In this regard, interpreting that a domestic company with a foreigner as an executive must submit a certification of fact on foreign resident registration although the Private Teaching Institutes Act does not prescribe the aforementioned certification as an attached document to be submitted may result in the restriction of the establishment and operation of private teaching institutes by domestic corporations with a foreigner as an executive who have not entered Korea or has resided in Korea for less than 90 days without a specific written regulation. Consequently, it is not appropriate to expand the interpretation of the scope of attached documents prescribed by Article 3 (2) and 6 (1) of the Enforcement Rules of the Private Teaching Institutes Act. 

However, when taking care of matters related to the establishment and operation of private teaching institutes, the superintendent of education shall check whether the executive of a corporation meets the grounds for disqualification or not pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act. In this regard, in order for the superintendent of education to review the substantial requirements required for registration of establishment and operation of a private teaching institute, the superintendent may obtain the consent of the person concerned and demand the applicant to submit the minimum information equivalent to Article 5 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to check whether the executive of the corporation intending to establish and operate a private teaching institute meets any grounds for disqualification. 

In conclusion, where a domestic company which has a foreigner as an executive intends to apply for registration or registration of change of establishment and operation of private education institutes, it cannot be requested that the superintendent of education mandatorily submit a certificate of fact on foreign resident registration which is not prescribed by the Private Teaching Institutes Act.

In this case, the project implementer has to hold a presentation in city A. 

Under Article 25 (1) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (hereafter “the Act”), it is prescribed that a project implementer shall formulate a draft environmental impact assessment report and gather consensus thereon from residents, etc. And under paragraph (6) of the same Article, it is stated that matters necessary for the methods for preparing draft environmental impact assessment reports made under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Also, in accordance with Article 39 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, if a “project zone subject to environmental impact assessment” straddles at least 2 Si/Gun/Gus, the relevant project implementer shall hold a presentation at each Si/Gun/Gu respectively. In this regard, if the area involved in the project subject to environmental impact assessment does not straddle two or more Si/Gun/Gus, it will be consistent with the ordinary meeting of the wording to interpret that the project implementer shall hold a presentation only in the relevant Si/Gun/Gu where the project subject to environmental impact assessment is implemented. 

In addition, strategic environmental impact assessment is conducted when intending to establish a plan on an urban development project or a plan for the development of an industrial site or industrial complex pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Act, and according to Article 11 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, each draft strategic environmental impact assessment shall include matters such as an overview of the master development plan and the area subject to strategic environmental impact assessment. On the other hand, pursuant to Article 22 (1) of the Act, an environmental impact assessment is conducted when intending to implement an urban development project, a plan to develop an industrial site or industrial complex, etc. and Article 34 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act prescribes that a draft environmental impact assessment report shall include an overview of the project (subparagraph 2), the extent of an area affected by each item of assessment by the implementation of the project subject to environmental impact assessment and the present environment condition of its environs (subparagraph 3). As such, the two types of assessments are conducted when establishing and implementing a “plan” or a “project”, respectively that impacts the environment, and the two assessments are different in nature and the content of their report. Also, in terms of the audience of the presentation, the strategic environmental impact assessment targets “the area subject to assessment” while the environmental impact assessment targets “the project subject to assessment”. Therefore, it should be considered that the area subject to presentation on environmental impact assessment pursuant to the regulations of the Act is different from the area subject to presentation on strategic environmental impact assessment. 

Also, administrative laws that form a ground for burdening administrative acts should be strictly interpreted and applied, and their interpretation should not be extensive or analogous in a way that is disadvantageous to the recipient of the administrative act. In this regard, when a project subject to environmental impact assessment does not straddle two or more Si/Gun/Gus, obligating an additional presentation at another Si/Gun/Gu just because it is adjacent to the Si/Gun/Gu where the project subject to environmental impact assessment is to be conducted shall be deemed an interpretation that applies an obligation that is not prescribed by relevant laws, and is an extensive interpretation without explicit regulations or reasonable ground, and is therefore not deemed appropriate. 

In conclusion, in this case, the project implementer can only hold a presentation in city A. 

Yes, two or more individuals may register a tourism accommodation business pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Tourism Promotion Act as joint business operators and obtain approval of business plan as prescribed by Article 15 (1) of the same Act. 

Under Article 4 (1) of the Tourism Promotion Act, it is regulated that a person who intends to engage in tourism accommodation business, etc. shall file for registration of such business with the relevant city mayor or provincial governor, etc. In addition, paragraph (5) of the Act stipulates that the matters necessary for procedures for the registration of tourism accommodation shall be prescribed by Ministerial Decree of Culture, Sports and Tourism. Also, Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act states that persons intending to register a tourism accommodation business shall submit an application for tourism business and a business plan, document certifying the ownership or real estate or right to use real estate to the city mayor or provincial governor and does not state otherwise, such as mandating that a single person should be the business operator when registering a tourism accommodation business or prohibiting the registration of two or more individuals as joint business operators. 

And under Article 7 of the Tourism Promotion Act, which regulates the grounds for disqualification for registration as a tourism business, personnel requirements such as “the number of business operators” are not prescribed as a ground for disqualification or registration, and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act mandates that individuals intending to register a tourism accommodation business shall submit a business plan, and the name and resident registration number and a document certifying the ownership of real estate if the applicant is a domestic resident, but does not restrict the requirements for business operators or the number of business operators for registering a tourism accommodation business. Furthermore, the purpose of the Tourism Promotion Act is to create an environment favorable to tourism, develop resources for tourism, and foster the tourism industry, and therefore allowing two or more joint business operators in the tourism accommodation business shall lead to attraction of investment and give way for diverse business operation methods, making it align with the legislative purpose of the Tourism Promotion Act. Considering such points, it shall be appropriate to deem that two or more individuals can be joint business operators in the tourism accommodation business pursuant to the Tourism Promotion Act and such joint business operators can register a tourism accommodation business and obtain approval of business plan. 

Moreover, when starting a new business, business registration is generally required pursuant to Article 168 of the Income Tax Act, and the fact that the Income Tax Act recognizes joint business operators in principle, as seen in the prescription of joint businesses in Article 2-2 (Scope of Tax Liability) and Article 43 (Special Cases concerning Calculation of Joint Business Income) of the Act, should be considered as well. 

In conclusion, it can be said that two or more individuals can become joint business operators and register a tourism accommodation business and obtain approval of business plan in accordance with Article 15 (1) of the Tourism Promotion Act. 

Yes, in this case a permission for change of use to a higher group pursuant to Article 19 (2) of the Building Act should be obtained.

Under the first sentence of Article 21 (3) of the Special Act on the Promotion of Venture Businesses and Article 14 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it is stipulated that notwithstanding Article 76 (1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 36 (1) of the Special Act on Promotion of Special Research and Development Zones, a person who has moved within the facilities for clustering venture businesses may establish an urban-type factory with a factory construction area of not more than 2,000 m2 among urban-type factories under subparagraph 1 of Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act to the extent that the structural safety is not threatened.

On the other hand, Article 19 (1) of the Building Act stipulates that any change in the use of a building shall be made in compliance with the building code for the changed use, and paragraph 2 (1) of the same Article prescribes that any person who intends to change the use of a building approved to use shall obtain permission to change the use of a building falling under the groups of facilities classified in the subparagraphs of paragraph 4 of the same Article to any group higher than the group. Also, under Article 14 (5) 2 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act which prescribes the groups of facilities, factories fall under groups of facilities for industrial purpose, etc., while subparagraph 6 (b) of the same paragraph classifies education and research facilities as groups of facilities for education and welfare. Therefore, when intending to change the use of the building falling under facilities for education and welfare to the use of factories classified as groups of facilities for industrial purpose, etc., a permission for change of use pursuant to Article 19 (2) of the Building Act should be obtained in principle because it is a change of use to a group higher than the group.

Because Article 21 (3) of the Special Act on the Promotion of Venture Businesses excludes the application of the regulation restricting change of use based on building code pursuant to Article 19 (1), not Article 19 as a whole, and Article 19 (2) of the said Act states that a person intending the change of use of a building should obtain permission or file a report, and prescribes the persons subject to permission or report of change of use and the procedures to obtain permission or file a report. In other words, because the contents of paragraphs (1) and (2) of the same Article are clearly different, Article 21 (3) of the Special Act on the Promotion of Venture Businesses can be deemed a regulation that exceptionally permits change of use within the facilities for clustering venture businesses notwithstanding the restrictions on change of use of a building pursuant to Article 19 (1) of the Building Act, but it is difficult to consider this as a regulation that grants exemption of the permission or report process for change of use under paragraph (2) of the same Article.

In addition, when a law prescribes regulations on certain principles and then stipulates regulations providing exceptions to such principles, the exceptions should not be exaggerated in interpretation and the interpretation should be stricter. However, Article 21 (3) of the Special Act on the Promotion of Venture Businesses should be strictly interpreted as an exception to the principles of change of use under Article 19 (1) of the Building Act prescribing that any change of the use of a building shall be made in compliance with the building code for the changed use, and the interpretation that the regulations on the persons subject to permission and report and the permission and report process shall be subject to exception in the same way as paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be considered an excessive extension of the regulations on special cases on a person who has moved within the facilities for clustering venture businesses in accordance with the Building Act, and therefore not considered appropriate.

Therefore, in this case, a permission for change of use to a higher group pursuant to Article 19 (2) of the Building Act should be obtained.

Yes. In this case, the surviving company should obtain permission for wastes treatment business pursuant to Article 25 (3) of the Wastes Control Act in order to continue to operate a wastes treatment business.

If the text of an Act is composed of relatively clear definitions, it can be said that a different interpretation method is unnecessary or should be used restrictively, in principle. And the first sentence of Article 33 (2) of the Wastes Control Act prescribes that "Where a wastes treatment business entity, etc. who is a corporation is merged by absorption with another corporation, establishes a new corporation after the merger with another corporation, or establishes a new corporation or is merged with another corporation after the division of waste treatment business, etc., a corporation surviving the merger or a corporation established by merger or division shall obtain permission from the Minister of Environment or the Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Ministerial Decree of Environment." In the second sentence of the same subparagraph, it is stated that "In such cases, the corporation surviving the merger or the corporation established by merger or division that obtained such permission shall succeed to the rights and obligations relating to permission for, approval of, registration of, or reporting on wastes treatment business, etc." Under subparagraph 8 of the same Article, "where the succession to rights and obligations is made under paragraph (1) or (2), the permission, approval, registration, or report regarding the previous wastes treatment business entity, etc. shall lose its effect" (main sentence). In this regard, where a wastes treatment business entity obtained permission for division pursuant to the first sentence of subparagraph 2 of the same Article, the newly incorporated company by division shall succeed to the rights and obligations relating to permission for, etc. waste treatment business, etc. pursuant to the second sentence of the same subparagraph and the main sentence of subparagraph 8 of the same Article, and where such rights and obligations are succeeded, the previous permission, etc. of waste treatment business entities, etc. shall lose its effect, and the surviving corporation is no longer deemed to possess a permission for valid wastes treatment business. Therefore, it shall be conforming to the texts of the Wastes Control Act to interpret that in order for a surviving corporation to continue to operate a wastes treatment business, permission for wastes treatment business prescribed by Article 25 (3) of the same Act should be obtained once again.

On the other hand, under Article 530-10 of the Commercial Act, a newly incorporated company by simple division, succeeding company after division, etc. shall assume the rights and obligations of the divided company as prescribed by a division plan. In this regard, if it is decided under the division plan that the surviving company and the newly incorporated company by division shall divide sections and both companies shall continue to operate a wastes treatment business, the newly incorporated company by division shall succeed the divided company’s rights and obligations within the scope prescribed by the division plan. In this regard, there can be arguments that the surviving company does not need to re-obtain permission for wastes treatment business under Article 25 (3) of the Wastes Control Act and can continue to operate such business. However, the purpose of the Commercial Act is to maintain and strengthen companies and guarantee corporate activities (for-profit activities) and therefore contribute to national economy, and the Act is a private law based on private autonomy. On the other hand, the Wastes Control Act is a public law based on publicity, the purpose of which is to contribute to enhancing the quality of people’s lives by restricting the emission of wastes and treating wastes in an eco-friendly manner. Because the two laws are separate independent laws with different basic concepts, the Commercial Act cannot apply preferentially over the Wastes Control Act and nor can the application of the Wastes Control Act be exempted without prescribed regulations, so such argument is not valid.

Consequently, in this case, the surviving company should obtain permission for division of wastes treatment business pursuant to Article 25 (3) of the Wastes Control Act in order to continue to operate a wastes treatment business.