Gyeongsan Waste Facility Permit Dispute, Fallout From Omitted Environmental Impact Assessment...“Board of Audit and Inspection and President Are the Last Bastion”

Gyeongsan City admits to "administrative flaws," but residents push back, saying they "no longer trust even the judiciary's decisions"
The company counters, claiming it is a "resource circulation facility that followed due process... legitimacy confirm

The conflict over permits for a waste treatment facility in the Sin-gwan-ri area of Jain-myeon, Gyeongsan-si has escalated to what is effectively a final trial over the municipality's administrative responsibility and procedural legitimacy, as the Board of Audit and Inspection has launched a public-interest audit and residents are considering submitting a petition to the Presidential Office.

Residents argue that the entire administrative process was unlawful, pointing out that the legally required environmental impact assessment was omitted when the first building permit was issued in 2022.

Residents of Singwan-ri, Jain-myeon, Gyeongsan-si say that when the factory operates, large freight trucks will travel the rural road dozens of times a day, increasing traffic safety risks. A typical scene of residents using a single-lane, one-way road without sidewalks.

The site in question had been operated under a permit granted in 2008 for a "metal assembly structure manufacturing business," but on December 16, 2021, its use was changed to a resource-circulation facility after it received a notice of suitability for a waste business from Gyeongsan City.

Residents contend that, unlike a simple manufacturing business, a waste treatment business is a completely different type of facility that generates new pollution sources such as leachate, foul odors, and fine dust. They argue that, despite this substantial change in actual impacts, failing to conduct prior consultations or an assessment under Article 44 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act constitutes a serious legal defect.

The company, however, has flatly rejected this claim.

The company states that, whereas the previously operated metal assembly structure plant had severe issues with paint and metal dust, its own plant handles combustible waste and only carries out shredding and crushing processes. It argues that it received a notice of suitability in December 2021 in accordance with due procedures, and that many criticisms are distorting the situation solely because the facility is categorized as a resource-circulation facility.

The company adds that the court rulings have already concluded the matter, that it is operating lawfully, and that its relationship with local residents is smooth.

The positions of Gyeongsan City and the residents are sharply divided over the process of collecting residents' opinions.

An official from Gyeongsan City stated that, at the time of the initial notice of suitability for the waste business in 2021, the city was not under any legal obligation to notify residents or provide explanations.

The official also expressed that, prior to the start of construction, it was practically difficult to check issues such as the loading of materials and equipment on the site.

Residents counter that the city's explanation reflects an attitude of administrative convenience.

According to Article 41 of the Administrative Procedures Act and ordinances on proactive administration adopted by local governments, when a facility has a close impact on residents' daily lives and health, it is a basic principle of administration to sufficiently collect opinions in advance, regardless of whether there is a strict legal obligation to do so.

They particularly criticize the omission of communication in a matter serious enough to later be deemed subject to an environmental impact assessment, arguing that the city effectively abandoned "procedural legitimacy."

They further argue that allowing materials to be brought onto the site before a construction-start notification was filed violated the municipality's duty to provide practical administrative guidance under Article 21 of the Building Act, and that this effectively amounted to condoning unauthorized commencement of construction.

Residents' distrust of the inconsistency in Gyeongsan City's administration has reached a peak.

They say they cannot understand how, despite the city's Civil Petition Mediation Committee deciding in September 2023 to reject the building permit application, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the city in July 2025, effectively siding with the company.

Residents state that they can no longer trust Gyeongsan City's erratic administration or the judiciary's decisions, and that they have prepared a petition with the feeling that they are making a final appeal to the President and the people.

They are considering delivering the petition, which carries the signatures of approximately 2,600 residents, directly to the President during an upcoming tour of the North Gyeongsang Province region.

The Board of Audit and Inspection has accepted the residents' request and has begun full-scale audit procedures, including on-site investigations.

Since Gyeongsan City itself has acknowledged the original administrative mistake of omitting the environmental impact assessment, which was at the core of the Supreme Court's ruling, the Board is expected to thoroughly investigate, in accordance with laws and principles, issues such as: whether there was a violation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and any intent behind it; the propriety of subsequent administrative actions that conflicted with the Civil Petition Mediation Committee's decision; and the transparency of the permitting process.

Resident representative Lee Sangjeong (70) stressed that if the Board of Audit and Inspection conducts an investigation that effectively grants the local government a free pass, residents will not stand idly by, and called for a rigorous investigation from working-level officials up to former and incumbent mayors with decision-making authority to uncover the substantive truth.