악취관리지역 외의 악취배출 신고대상시설 지정ㆍ고시 취소 청구의 소
1. On August 28, 2015, the Defendant designated and publicly notified the Plaintiff of facilities subject to reporting on the discharge of malodor, other than malodor control areas.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On or after March 31, 2012, the Plaintiff, a private investment project entity, operates a public disposal facility for livestock excreta B (hereinafter “instant disposal facility”).
B. Around July 28, 2015, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do notified the Plaintiff of the requirement for designation and publication as a facility subject to reporting on the instant disposal facilities, as well as of the plan to take such disposition, and notified the Plaintiff of its opinion as the shipment by August 10, 2015.
The requirements of the disposition stated in the notification were 35 times from the summer in 2014 to June 2015, and the civil petition was filed on June 29, 2014; and it exceeded the permissible emission levels of malodor on January 12, 2015.
After hearing the Plaintiff’s opinions, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do designated and publicly notified the Plaintiff as malodor-emitting facilities other than the malodor control area of the instant disposal facilities as facilities subject to reporting pursuant to Article 8-2 of the Malodor Prevention Act on August 28, 2015.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.
On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Governor of Jeollabuk-do with objection to the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said claim on March 22, 2016.
(A) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, Jeollabuk-do branch prior to its initial rectification, and the cause falling under the proviso of Article 13(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act occurred, and this court corrected the Defendant from the former Governor of Jeollabuk-do to the following market pursuant to Articles 14(6) and the proviso of Article 13(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act. Therefore, the lawsuit against the Defendant’s branch prior to its rectification pursuant to Article 14(6), (4), and (5) of the Administrative Litigation Act shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, and the lawsuit against the Defendant, which was corrected, shall be deemed to have been instituted at the time of first filing the instant lawsuit at the time of its initial rectification; hereinafter the same shall apply). [The grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1, 13, and 2, 3, and 5 are written, respectively, and