폐기물조치명령 및 폐기물처리책임 ― 2019년 개정된 폐기물관리법 제48조의 평가 및 해석 ―

Article 48 of the Wastes Control Act on the order to take actions for disposing of wastes is an authorization provision for the competence to take protective measures against the danger of damage to the environment due to waste. At the same time, it is also the basic norm for waste disposal responsibility. This paper understands this responsibility as danger defense responsibility (polizeiliche Verantwortlichkeit), and emphasizes the need to balance public interest and private interest in the responsibility. The order to take actions for disposing of wastes in Article 48 is distinct from the action order in Article 8 (3), as revealed by the Supreme Court, but from a legislative point of view, that is de lege ferenda, they should be integrated. It is necessary to understand the differences and commonalities between the responsibilities for waste disposal and soil purification, and since they are both the danger defense responsibility, it is necessary to introduce the responsibility priority rules of the Soil Conservation Act into the Wastes Control Act. The succession of waste disposal responsibility was revised to co-existent succession with the revision of the Wastes Control Act in 2019, but this issue needs to be re-examined. The provisions of each number of Article 48 (1) have been expanded and reorganized with the revision in 2019, and the following problems are pointed out. First, in no. 1, etc., the order to take actions for disposing of wastes is defined with the concept of ‘improperly disposed waste’. Instead, it needs to be reorganized with ‘improper disposal of waste’. Second, the meaning of ‘entrusted person’ in no. 2 is unclear. Third, the ‘reasons attributable’ in no. 3 have problems such as the principle of legislative clarity, reservation of important matters, and the principle of ‘no penalty without a law (nulla poena sine lege)’. Fourth, the meaning of ‘involvement’ in No. 4 is unclear, and the relationship with No. 6 is also ambiguous. Fifth, it is necessary to reconsider the legislative method that stipulates the person in charge of no. 5 on the same level as other persons in charge. Sixth, no. 7 and no. 8 are not indispensable.