과태료반환거부처분등취소
1. The Defendant’s order to submit a plan to prevent harm and danger against the Plaintiff on November 7, 2017 is revoked.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. As an agricultural company, the Plaintiff is running a food manufacturing business that processes tin food, namely, “C,” by constructing an agricultural product processing factory (hereinafter “instant factory”) and an office (hereinafter “instant office”) on the ground of the following city: (a) the Plaintiff is running a food manufacturing business that processes tin food (hereinafter “instant business”).
B. The Plaintiff entered into the business agreement with the Korea Rural Community Corporation and D private business operators, and established a vinyl house (hereinafter “the instant house”) in the factory and the place of the office near the factory of this case, and also carries out an agricultural specialization project for cultivating the number of fruits outside the country, hereds, sons, sandtomas, Ulsantomas, and saves.
C. The Plaintiff awarded a contract for electrical construction to E for the instant plant, office, and house, but the electrical contract capacity of the instant plant, office, and house was as follows.
1st floor of the quantity requested for the use of electric kinds of electricity at the workplace 20kW 220kW 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 30kW 130kW 400kW 2nd 2nd 30kW
D. On August 2, 2017, the Defendant imposed an administrative fine of KRW 6,00,000 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not submit a plan for prevention of harm and danger (hereinafter “instant plan”) under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (hereinafter “Industrial Safety Act”). On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the administrative fine of KRW 4,80,000 reduced by the voluntary payment deadline, and filed an application for the return of the said administrative fine on October 11, 2018.
E. On November 7, 2017, the Defendant refused to refund the above administrative fine and ordered the submission of the instant plan.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Industrial Safety Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, are food manufacturing businesses with a capacity of at least 300 kW, are the pertinent product manufacturing business.