Large-scale environmental and infrastructure projects invariably generate tension between policy "necessity" and residents' "acceptance." In a suit to revoke the Mayor of Seoul's public notice designating the site of a regional resource recovery facility (2025Nu5904), the Seoul High Court recently upheld the revocation ordered below, making clear that public interest necessity cannot justify defects in administrative procedure. We are pleased to introduce the case commentary on that judgment contributed by attorney Donghwan Shin of Law Firm Changchun LLC to Lawtimes on February 28, 2026.
1. A Strict View of When a Site Selection Committee Is "Established"
The court held that a committee is "established" not simply when an internal plan is drawn up, but when the appointment of members has been completed and the committee is in a position to perform its deliberative and decision-making functions in substance. On that basis it held that a committee constituted without complying with the amended Enforcement Decree standards was unlawful.
2. Securing Independence in Selecting the Expert Research Institution
The failure to maintain neutrality as a decision-making body independent of the installing authority (the Seoul Metropolitan Government) when selecting the expert institution to conduct the feasibility study was also identified as a significant procedural defect.
3. The Limited Application of Circumstantial Judgment
The court held that grounds such as disruption to household waste processing, said to be contrary to public welfare, were not by themselves enough to sustain an unlawful administrative disposition through a "circumstantial judgment." The case confirms that administration that fails to secure procedural trust may in fact impose greater social costs.
Closing
The more directly a facility affects residents' daily lives — as a resource recovery facility does — the more important it is to build trust through lawful procedure. This judgment reaffirms that the means of realizing the public interest must themselves remain within the framework of the rule of law and due process.
For details of the case commentary, please see the link below.
Can the Weight of the Public Interest Justify Procedural Defects?