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

A. On February 201, the Plaintiff, a juristic person established for the purpose of waste disposal business, etc., and the Defendant’s comprehensive waste recycling business license (hereinafter “instant license”) on March 29, 2013, conducted recycling business of vegetable residues, livestock excreta, livestock excreta, excreta disposal, etc. in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. On August 7, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for six months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff stored wastes in improper manner.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. As long as the Defendant’s main defense was revoked the Plaintiff’s permission, the Defendant’s defense to the effect that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant disposition.

B. 1) A lawsuit seeking the revocation of an illegal administrative disposition is a lawsuit seeking the restoration to its original state by excluding an unlawful state arising from an illegal disposition, and protecting and remedying the rights and interests infringed or interfered with such disposition. Thus, even if the cancellation of the illegal disposition is impossible to restore it to the original state, there is no benefit to seek the revocation of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu17403, Jan. 24, 1997). 2) In full view of the following purport: (i) the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the permission of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff disposed of industrial wastes at a place other than the place or facility installed to collect wastes from the Plaintiff on February 12, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “previous disposition”); (ii) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the previous disposition, but the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed under the Cheongju District Court Decision 2018Gu2297, Oct. 11, 2018; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s appeal against Daejeon Decision 297.