영업정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 2, 2010, the Plaintiff, with the permission from the Defendant, runs a general waste recycling business in the Gyeong-gun B (hereinafter “instant place of business”). The permitted storage quantity is 1,020 tons, and daily waste recycling quantity is 100 tons.
B. On the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 25(9) of the Wastes Control Act regarding the matters to be observed by the waste disposal business entity by storing 3,315 tons of wastes in an outdoor place of business, other than the storage facility, which was permitted on February 20, 2017, on March 20, 2017, the Defendant issued a penalty surcharge of KRW 20 million and a waste disposal order (the disposal deadline: June 21, 2017; hereinafter “previous waste disposal order”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 28 and 39-3 of the same Act.
C. After doing an on-site business trip investigation on May 31, 2017 at the instant place of business, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff entrusted the disposal of 6,768 tons from February 21, 2017 to May 30, 2017, and stored 2,035 tons of waste in a disposal of 6,768 tons from February 21, 2017 to May 30, 2017, and the remaining 4,573 tons of waste in an outdoor place of business.
(6,768 tons-2,035 tons = 4,533 tons of wastes stored in a place, other than the storage place, seems to be an error in the calculation of the Defendant-in-charge.
Accordingly, on May 31, 2017, the Defendant issued a business suspension three months and a waste disposal order (hereinafter “instant prior disposition”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 27 and 39-3 of the Wastes Control Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 25(9) of the same Act by keeping waste storage facilities, not in a place of business, but in an outdoor place of business, which is not a waste storage facility that has obtained permission for 4,573 tons of waste.
E. In addition, the Defendant conducted on-site inspections on June 22, 2017 at the instant place of business, and as a result, on-site inspections on the instant place of business, on February 21, 2017, from February 21, 2017, the date following the date on which the Plaintiff violated the previous waste treatment order.