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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engaged in a comprehensive waste recycling business in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun.

B. On November 15, 2017, the head of Si/Gun ordered the Plaintiff to dispose of the wastes neglected within the pertinent workplace pursuant to Article 40(2) of the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter “instant disposal order”) within the disposal period (from November 16, 2017 to December 5, 2017). On December 1, 2017, the said disposal period was extended by December 10, 2017.

C. On January 11, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the above disposal order within the disposal period, the head of Si/Gun issued a disposition of business suspension for six months against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 60 of the Wastes Control Act and Article 83 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. On January 19, 2018, the head of Si/Gun filed a claim for payment of the insurance money with the relevant bank in charge of managing the neglected waste disposal guarantee company, which the Plaintiff joined pursuant to Article 40(4)2 of the Wastes Control Act

On January 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant six-month business suspension disposition with the former Do Administrative Appeals Commission (Seoul-do Administrative Appeals Commission) by the head of Si/Gun, and the former Do Administrative Appeals Commission (Seoul-do Administrative Appeals Commission) rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on May 31, 2018 during the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 4, 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s duty to dispose of the abandoned wastes is nonexistent on the following three grounds.

A. The Plaintiff did not suspend operations due to business suspension or closure, etc., and thus, the instant order for disposal under Article 40(2) of the Wastes Control Act is unlawful.

B. Since the Plaintiff disposed of all wastes neglected in accordance with the instant disposal order, the Plaintiff’s obligation to dispose of the abandoned wastes in accordance with the instant disposal order has ceased to exist.

C. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s obligation to dispose of neglected waste by acquiring D Limited Liability Company’s waste disposal facilities at auction around March 23, 2018.