Wastes Control Act | A Judgment Revoking a Penalty Surcharge of Approximately 700 Million Won Imposed for a Violation of the Wastes Control Act

The corporate attorney collaborated with an administrative law attorney to assist the client in the case as follows.

1. Concentrated Assertion of the Illegality of Failing to Consider the Grounds for Mitigation under the Wastes Control Act

The Daeryun corporate attorney first established as the core issue the fact that the head of the district office had failed to consider at all the grounds for mitigation specified in the Wastes Control Act during the disposition process.

According to Article 83(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act, in the following cases, an administrative disposition may be mitigated within the scope of one-half of the business suspension period.

• Where the degree of the violation is minor, and
• Where there is no environmental pollution, or it is so slight that it has not affected human health
• Where the violation was due to an unavoidable cause rather than intent, and prompt follow-up measures were taken

In this matter, the client did not intentionally evade the reporting procedure under the Wastes Control Act but merely omitted it temporarily due to inexperience in administrative work, and no environmental pollution or harm to residents arose from the client's conduct.

In particular, by presenting a precedent ruling in which, in a separate case seeking revocation of another penalty surcharge imposition against the client's company, the administrative appeals commission had determined that "bulky waste has a low possibility of generating pollution in the course of collection and transport," the attorney asserted that this case was likewise a mere procedural violation with no substantial risk.

2. Active Dispute over the Violation of the Penalty Surcharge Calculation Standard under the Wastes Control Act

In addition, the Daeryun corporate attorney focused on disputing the fact that the revenue of the client's company had been overstated in the course of calculating the penalty surcharge.

According to Article 28(1) of the Wastes Control Act and Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act, a penalty surcharge in lieu of a business suspension must be calculated based solely on the average annual revenue arising from the "relevant waste-treatment business" subject to the business suspension.

However, even though the business subject to the suspension was the intermediate waste-disposal business, the district office applied an unlawful method of calculating the penalty surcharge based on the entire revenue of the client's company.

In response, Daeryun systematically organized the following points and asserted at the appellate level that this penalty surcharge disposition was unlawful in both its legal basis and its calculation structure.

• Identification of the business type subject to the business suspension
• Standard for separating revenue by business type
• Violation of the principles of proportionality and equality in calculating the penalty surcharge

The principal administrative sanctions that may be imposed for a violation of the Wastes Control Act are as follows.

• Business Suspension: A disposition prohibiting the operation of the waste-treatment business itself for a certain period, which can have a critical effect on corporate revenue and business relationships.

• Penalty Surcharge: A monetary sanction imposed in lieu of a business suspension, which must strictly follow the calculation standard set by statute, and an issue of illegality arises in the case of overcalculation. Under the Wastes Control Act, a penalty surcharge in lieu of a business suspension may be imposed within a range not exceeding the amount obtained by multiplying revenue by 5/100.

• Penalty Surcharge in Lieu of a Business Suspension: Although it is imposed selectively in consideration of the social and economic ripple effects of a business suspension, it has the same sanction character as a business suspension, so it becomes the subject of a legal dispute.

The law firm Daeryun provides one-stop support for Wastes Control Act violation cases, from the initial response to the conclusion of the case, through the establishment of a response strategy to administrative dispositions by corporate attorneys and administrative law attorneys.

If you have received a business suspension or a penalty surcharge disposition for a violation of the Wastes Control Act, reviewing the possibility of legal mitigation or revocation is the first step in protecting your company.

Daeryun establishes a strategic response strategy that takes into account the company's business continuity and management stability.

If you are in a situation that requires legal assistance related to the Wastes Control Act, we encourage you to make a 🔗Legal Consultation Appointment with Daeryun, the ninth-ranked law firm in the Republic of Korea (based on 2025 National Tax Service value-added tax filings).