2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. According to the facts-finding record, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) B received a business plan for the comprehensive waste disposal business on July 9, 2015 (hereinafter “instant application”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”).

(2) The Defendant notified on August 11, 2015 of the results of the review of the relevant laws regarding the general waste disposal recycling business to B.

3) The Plaintiff, having B as an internal director, was established on August 24, 2015. 4) The Defendant, on March 3, 2016, notified B of the failure to comply with the comprehensive waste treatment business plan (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

5) B submitted a written objection to the instant disposition in the name of “AB” on March 9, 2016, and the Defendant respondeded to the refusal of the instant objection to B on March 15, 2016. (6) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Gangwon-do Administrative Appeals Commission on March 21, 2016 to the effect that the instant disposition is deemed to be a disposition against the Plaintiff and seek the revocation thereof. The said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal.

B. 1) The person who filed the instant application is B, and the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against B who filed the instant application, as seen earlier. 2) The Plaintiff is not a direct counterpart to the instant disposition, but a corporation whose representative is B.

Therefore, B was planned to establish the Plaintiff and run the waste disposal business.

Even if the Plaintiff is not a person directly subject to the instant disposition, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was subject to infringement of rights or legal disadvantage due to such disposition, and the disadvantage is merely a de facto disadvantage.

Therefore, the plaintiff has no standing or legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition of this case.

C. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.