신고대상악취배출시설지정고시처분 취소
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. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) The absence of the grounds for disposition (1) according to the fair malodor test method’s non-compliance with the malodor test method, the combined malodor is measured by applying air dilution dilution. The Defendant, prior to the collection of samples, clean cleaning of samples, collecting pipes, pumps, etc. at least once in the sprinking air at least once in the sprinking air, and did not have a water sprinking pipe for the collection of samples at least three minutes, and did not have a water sprink for the removal of hydrogen. Thus, the Defendant violated the lawful procedures at the stage of the collection of samples.
(2) The Enforcement Rule of the Malodor Prevention Act stipulates that samples shall be collected from the boundary of the site and the discharge outlet, respectively, in cases where other malodor-generating sources, such as the Plaintiff’s workplace, are mixed. Therefore, if all samples collected from the boundary of the site and the discharge outlet exceed the permissible emission level under the Malodor Prevention Act, it shall be deemed that such samples exceed
Therefore, it is illegal to judge that the defendant exceeded the permissible emission levels based on the result of collecting samples at any time.
(3) The Defendant, without credibility of the inspection result, did not observe the fair malodor test procedure and collected samples, and determined the place of collection without considering other companies’ emission facilities that emitted malodor in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s place of business. Thus, the inspection result cannot be trusted.
(4) The non-existence of a malodor civil petition that has continued for more than one year includes a place located far away from the Plaintiff’s place of business. The surrounding areas include other companies capable of causing malodor, and according to the civil petition, the Defendant measured the malodor concentration in the Plaintiff’s place of business, but was determined to be appropriate several times. Thus, the malodor civil petition against the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have continued for more than one year.
B. The Plaintiff who is abused from discretionary power has been judged as successful in all items as a result of regular inspection by the Korea Testing Laboratory.