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

A. The Plaintiff, a company engaged in air self-measurement, air control agency business, etc. in Gyeonggi-do, was issued a certificate of registration of measuring agency business under Article 16 of the Environmental Examination and Inspection Act (hereinafter “Environmental Examination and Inspection Act”) on November 8, 2010 and Article 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. On January 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was confirmed to be an institution meeting the criteria for determining the results of accuracy management by receiving “a certificate of accuracy management” from the President of the National Institute of Environmental Research pursuant to Article 18-2 of the same Act and Article 17-3(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

B. Around 10:00 on July 21, 2016, the Defendant visited the Plaintiff’s workplace to conduct a guidance and inspection. On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff discovered that the date of collection of samples (N) collected from “E” located in Pocheon C and D and the date of collection of samples (H number) collected from “G” located in Pocheon C and D, and that the date of collection of samples (H number) collected from “G” located in Pocheon C, and that the date of collection of samples was October 10, 2015, a Saturday. This found that the Plaintiff calculated the result of measurement in a false manner by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff constitutes the grounds of calculation for business suspension under Article 18 and Article 17(1) [Attachment Table 10] of the Environmental Examination Act, Article 16(1) [Attachment 10] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 16(2) [Attachment 10] 4(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Although the Plaintiff’s non-existence of grounds for disposition 1 by the Plaintiff visited “E” and “G” on October 7, 2015, which is the date of demand, the Plaintiff did not actually visit the said company and did not make a false statement on October 10, 2015, the date and time of collecting samples of the said company by mistake.