폐기물관리법 개정의 주요내용에 대한 비판적 고찰

Abstract

In recent years, the illegal or inappropriate treatment of waste has rapidly increased, and the problem of secondary environmental infringement has been seriously raised. However, that is not handled properly, since many people in charge of treatment of unsuitable wastes disposal can't afford by themselves, and the execution by proxy for treatment is not performed well due to the lack of its budget etc.. To cope with this, the Waste Control Act was revised on 26 November 2019 and was implemented on 27 May 2020. The purpose of this article is to analyse the main amendments of the Waste Control Act, focusing on the proper treatment of unsuitably treated wastes, and to find solutions to the problems of the revised Waste Control Act in terms of interpretative and legislative theories. The main contents revised to prevent improper disposal of waste and to promptly treat waste improperly treated are as follows. The government-level management and supervision to waste management by local governments has been strengthened, and regulations have been strengthened on household waste discharge person. Regulations on waste treatment business persons or companies were also strengthened. In order to enhance the managerial effectiveness of improper wastes, we expanded the scope of the person responsible for disposing of unsuitable wastes, strengthened their responsibilities, and strengthened the effectiveness of execution by proxy. However, It has been insufficient for the revision of this Waste Control Act. The following supplements are needed in the future. The consignment contract for the disposal of household wastes should be regarded as a contract under the public law, and management supervision of the trustees of the mayor, county, and ward offices who are the consignors of household wastes should be strengthened. Regulations on recyclable household waste should be strengthened. The reason for the waste disposal business person's fault must be interpreted in accordance with the legislative purpose, and furthermore, it should be clearly defined. Those who is targeted of orders among a number of persons responsible for of inappropriate disposing wastes should be determined, and criteria for determining the scope of action orders should be clarified. It is desirable to define the agency with action order power and vicarious executive power and the payment-order for vicarious executive expenses in consideration of the types of unsuitable teated waste, responsibility to wastes treatment, or administrative agencies responsible for management and supervision. Criteria for equitable distribution of vicarious execution expenses among multiple managers should also be established.