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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same as that for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination 1) According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 10, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, and 3 as a whole, and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 10, 14, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 and 3 as a whole, Eul, around July 31, 2017, disposed of the instant wastes that were loaded onto E on the vehicle, around 06:30, in the Daegu-gu Enterprise Group B (hereinafter "the instant vacant lot"), Eul, notified the plaintiff on August 3, 2017, notified the Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Si Gun Office of the receipt of an accusation of illegal dumping, and three thereafter, from around 12:0 to 13:00, the fact that Eul collected the instant wastes from the instant vacant lot, ④ the representative director of the plaintiff, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s official in charge of the Plaintiff, on August 27, 2017, prepared a confirmation document to the effect that the Plaintiff’s unlawful dumping was accepted.

B. In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen in light of the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that C violated Article 8(1) of the Wastes Control Act by dumping the instant wastes into the instant official land without permission. As such, the first Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

① The instant wastes are stored in the instant public land, and C is related to the management, disposal, etc. of the instant wastes.