Gunsan Law Firm Assistance | Stay of Execution for a Corrective Order under the Wastes Control Act

The client is associated with Company S, which was established for purposes such as the collection and processing of recyclable materials.

To entrust the disposal of approximately 650 tons of waste, the client entered into an agreement with Company A.

As it turned out, Company A was an unlicensed waste disposal operator.

After entering into the entrustment contract with Company S, Company A dumped waste without authorization at the site subject to the disposition in this case.

In response, the administrative agency issued a corrective order for a violation of the Wastes Control Act, on the ground that the client had entrusted the work without verifying whether the entrustee had the capacity to dispose of the waste in accordance with the waste disposal standards or the recycling principles and compliance requirements.

Because the party that dumped the waste at the site was Company A, the client sought to obtain a 🔗stay of execution against this disposition.

The client turned to the Gunsan Law Firm to resolve the matter with the assistance of a firm experienced in a range of 🔗administrative litigation.

① There must be a benefit in the stay of execution.

② The suit on the merits must be lawfully pending.

③ There must be a concern that harm difficult to recover from will arise.

④ There must be an urgent need.

⑤ There must be no concern that the stay of execution would have a serious effect on public welfare.

⑥ It must not be clear that the claim on the merits is without grounds.

🔗Curious about the overview and procedure of administrative litigation?

Under the relevant statutes, failure to comply with the corrective order is punishable by imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to 30 million won.

The firm emphasized that, if the client could not comply with the disposition in this case, criminal punishment would follow, and that if the client were punished, harm impossible to recover from would clearly arise for the client.

The disposition in this case calls for the lawful disposal of the waste, but the party that dumped the waste at the site is Company A.

A corrective order can therefore be issued against Company A, and if Company A fails to comply, vicarious administrative execution is available.

Because the current law would apply to vicarious administrative execution, the firm emphasized that there was no concern that the stay of execution would have a serious effect on public welfare.

Each item of Article 17(1) of the Wastes Control Act sets out the obligations that a business operator discharging workplace waste must observe.

The party who becomes the subject of a corrective order also means the business operator who failed to observe the compliance requirements set out in each item.

The firm therefore emphasized that the business operator who discharged the workplace waste in the disposition in this case was Company A, and that the client was a mere third party who was not even the representative director.

Daeryun Law Firm has handled a range of 🔗administrative litigation cases, and its 🔗administrative attorneys, who have developed deep know-how, offer solutions tailored to each client.

Through analysis of its own administrative litigation data and the latest trends in precedent, the firm works to resolve legal disputes across many areas quickly.

The firm provides comprehensive legal services, including not only representation in administrative appeals and administrative litigation but also statutory interpretation and advisory work.

If you need the assistance of an attorney in a situation similar to the case above, you are welcome to turn to the Gunsan Law Firm for a consultation at any time.