대기배출시설폐쇄명령취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
On March 2017, the Plaintiff was a juristic person operating a motor vehicle type restoration business, motor vehicle painting machinery wholesale and retail business, etc., and operated a training center for non-motor vehicle type restoration business located at 335 o. 6-7 o. d. d. 335 o. d. d. d. (hereinafter “instant training center”).
On March 13, 2017, the Defendant installed and operated a facility emitting air pollutants [factory facilities and building facilities] at the workplace of 83.15 cubic meters located within the instant district office of education (hereinafter “instant workplace”) without filing a report on installation of emission facilities under Article 23(1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act. The Defendant issued an order to suspend the use of the said workplace and close down (A evidence 1-1, hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Articles 38 and 84 of the Clean Air Conservation Act. The Defendant’s disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any dispute with the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s written evidence 1-1, 1-2, and 5-Attachment 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Clean Air Conservation Act; the Plaintiff’s installation of a seal-emitting facility in the instant workplace of 5 cubic meters or more; and the Plaintiff’s installation of a seal-emitting facility and a seal-emitting facility of 2,000 cubic meters or more (hereinafter “this case’s 2-Attachment 3,”.