조치명령처분 취소
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 has operated an aggregate extraction business with the trade name “C” from August 4, 2010 to November 201.
On December 14, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant to temporarily use farmland for other purposes (the period of temporary use: from December 9, 2010 to December 9, 2013) (the period of temporary use: the period from December 9, 2010 to the date of December 9, 2013) and buried and stored waste (organic sludge) generated in the course of operating a aggregate selection line on the instant land.
As the period of temporary use of the above D land for other purposes expires, the Plaintiff was ordered to restore the above land to its original state.
B. From June 7, 2014 to June 9, 2014, the Defendant illegally buried in the daily area of the instant land the waste of which is 7,000 square meters or 8,000 square meters or more, which is a waste from the instant land and filed a complaint on the grounds that the Plaintiff and E violated Article 63 subparag. 2 of the Wastes Control Act, and the same year.
7. 8. The Plaintiff ordered the appropriate storage and disposal of wastes illegally reclaimed on the instant land pursuant to Article 48 Subparag. 1 and Article 8(2) of the Wastes Control Act.
(2) The Plaintiff filed a claim for revocation of the instant disposition on January 20, 2015. However, the Plaintiff’s obligation to properly store and dispose of wastes buried on the instant land arose as the instant disposition. The instant disposition did not impose a new obligation to take measures, but is merely a postponement notice within the deadline of the order to take measures. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the instant disposition should be determined on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the instant disposition.
As to this, around August 2014 and September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff extended the period of the instant disposition to the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff’s permission for development in progress was delayed.