과징금부과처분취소
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 company that operates a construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal business with a license for the interim construction waste disposal business on April 22, 2002 and a license for the modification to add the dice drying System on March 19, 2008, respectively, with a license for the interim construction waste disposal business on the ground of the 1115th YY-ro, YU-si, YU-si.
B. From January 2014 to April 2014, the Plaintiff processed the instant construction waste by mixing it with the general soil company without using the pen presses (hereinafter “instant construction waste”).
C. On May 20, 2014, the Defendant notified on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the processing standards stipulated in Article 13(1) of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act (hereinafter “Construction Waste Act”) with respect to the instant construction waste disposal, that the Defendant would suspend business operations for one month pursuant to Article 25(2) of the Construction Waste Act.
On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to impose penalty surcharge of KRW 20,000,000 in lieu of the business suspension as above, and the Defendant imposed penalty surcharge of KRW 20,000 on June 9, 2014 pursuant to Article 26 of the Construction Waste Act.
(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition of this case’s existence of no dispute, Gap’s evidence 4-2, Eul’s evidence 3-9, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Even if the Plaintiff obtained a construction waste interim disposal business license with the content of building wastes by using the presses, it does not need to use the presses for the construction waste with low water content. The construction waste of this case was less than 85% of water content and did not need to be disposed of using the presses. Since the Plaintiff disposed of waste in compliance with the construction waste disposal standards, the instant disposition was unlawful due to the absence of the grounds for disposal.