조업정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in the production and processing business of plastic materials, etc. in the door-to-door B.
B. On April 24, 2018, the Defendant issued a ten-day disposition for the suspension of operation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) based on Article 31(1)1, Article 36, and Article 84 of the Clean Air Conservation Act, and Article 134 [Attachment Table 36] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s factory operated a crushing and crushing facility, which is an air pollutants emission facility (hereinafter “discharge facility”), and a sorting facility, which is an air pollution prevention facility (hereinafter “preventive facility”) at the Plaintiff’s factory, on April 3, 2018.
C. On April 25, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the C Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 17, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. At around 07:40 on April 3, 2018, in the Plaintiff’s factory, the operation of preventive facilities was suspended due to the malfunction of the Electric Power Team contact devices at the time. However, in the situation where the vehicles are waiting to transport solid fuels at the time and the products have to be produced, it was controlled by the public official in charge of the Defendant between the failure to suspend the operation of preventive facilities immediately due to the malfunction of parts. When the operation of preventive facilities is suspended for 10 days due to the instant disposition, the transaction company receiving solid fuels from the Plaintiff would suffer damage upon the suspension of the operation of the factory. The Plaintiff company completed restoration work due to the fire of the factory that occurred around April 2017 and made efforts for the normal operation of the company, such as finding new customers and operating the factory. Considering the fact that the instant disposition has a great difficulty, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing discretionary power.
(b) judgment 1 sanctions.