2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Disposition of suspending business operations under paragraph (1) for three months shall be suspended until this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. On November 4, 2002, the Plaintiff obtained a license for an interim disposal business of wastes (food waste) and registered the business of manufacturing simple feed feed (refinite feed feed), around February 1, 2004. On July 1, 2005, the Plaintiff obtained a license for a waste intermediate disposal business (biological chemical treatment facilities) with the content that the disposal capacity is increased on or around July 1, 2005, and extended the treatment capacity, and registered the production business of by-product fertilizers (refinite food waste) with the content that the waste treatment facilities are expanded, such as grasium, saw enfinium, and brusium (biological treatment facilities) around June 2006. On April 3, 2008, the Plaintiff reported on the manufacturing business of by-product fertilizers (refinite food waste treatment facilities) with the disposal capacity of food waste as raw materials for producing fertilizers instead of reducing the daily treatment capacity from 180t to 80t of the existing waste intermediate treatment business.

B. On February 24, 2009, the Defendant issued a disposition under the provisions of Article 30(1) and (2) of the Wastes Control Act and Article 41 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated the provisions of Articles 27(2)11 and 60 of the Act, Article 83(1) [Attachment Table 21] [Attachment Table 21] of the Enforcement Rule,” Article 83(1) [Attachment 21] 2.14 of the Enforcement Rule, for the suspension of business (the suspension period: March 9, 2009 to June 8, 2009) against the Plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of Article 30(1) and (2) of the Wastes Control Act and Article 41 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Meanwhile, among food waste disposal facilities, the Plaintiff was inspected on July 4, 2006 on the installation of compost facilities and undergone a regular inspection on June 25, 2007 and June 20, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 6, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport.

(1) Since food waste disposal facilities do not distinguish from feed-making facilities and composting facilities, it can be deemed that feed-making facilities have undergone an inspection on compost facilities, even though they were inspected on compost facilities. Also, the feed-manufacturing business constitutes not waste disposal business but waste recycling business, and Article 83 [Attachment 21] of the Enforcement Rule is not subject to an administrative disposition against a waste recycling business operator’s failure to undergo an inspection on feed-generating facilities. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. According to Article 27(2)11 of the Act, even if the Plaintiff’s failure to undergo an inspection on the feed-making facility is subject to an administrative disposition, an administrative disposition can not be taken on the sole ground that the Plaintiff failed to conduct an inspection on the feed-making facility and only use the feed-making facility. However, the Plaintiff did not have manufactured feed using the feed-making facility. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful.

Fidelity even if the Plaintiff used historical facilities, taking account of the circumstances such as the possibility of bankruptcy when the instant disposition is maintained, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s first argument

According to Article 2 subparag. 8, Article 25(5)2, Article 30 of the Act, Article 5 [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, Article 41(6) [Attachment Table 10] 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 41(8) [Attachment Table 10] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, feed-making facilities are one of the biological treatment facilities among the intermediate waste treatment facilities, which are divided into compost facilities, and are subject to separate inspections from compost facilities. The above feed-making facilities are one of the intermediate waste treatment facilities, and the disposal of wastes is performed by biological treatment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the different premise is without merit.

D. Judgment on the second argument by the Plaintiff

(i) Whether an administrative disposition can be taken only on the basis of non-inspection of feed-making facilities.

Article 27(2) of the Act, which is a ground provision for the instant disposition, provides that “When a person who installs and operates waste disposal facilities fails to undergo an inspection under Article 30 of the Act from an inspection institution or to use waste disposal facilities which failed to pass a decision of appropriateness, he/she may revoke permission or order the suspension of all or part of his/her business for a specified period not exceeding six months,” and Article 65 of the Act, which is a ground provision for criminal punishment, provides that “a person who operates waste disposal facilities without undergoing an inspection or passing a decision of conformity in violation of Article 30 of the Act, who operates waste disposal facilities, shall be punished by imprisonment

Considering the purport of the provision on the basis of the disposition of this case, the form of language and text, the purport of the provision on the basis of criminal punishment and the language and text form, and the relationship with the above provisions, it cannot be subject to an administrative disposition, such as business suspension, merely because it did not undergo an inspection on the feed-making facility, and even if it used the facility without undergoing an inspection, it can be subject to an administrative disposition, such as

Whether the Plaintiff used feed-making facilities that the Plaintiff failed to perform the inspection

㈎ 을 제6호증, 을 제13호증의 1, 2, 을 제14, 15, 16호증, 을 제18호증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재 및 증인 소외 1의 일부 증언에 의하면, ① 경북 의성군청 환경축산과 소속 직원인 소외 2가 2007. 1. 9. 경상북도지사에게 ‘원고가 2006년도 하반기에 970t의 단미사료를 생산하여 630t을 판매하였다’라는 내용의 보고(이하 ‘이 사건 보고’라고 한다)를 한 사실, ② 경북도청 축산경영과 소속 공무원인 소외 1 및 경북 의성군청 환경축산과 소속 공무원인 소외 2는 2008. 9. 17. 원고 공장을 현장단속한 후 ‘원고는 남은 음식물사료업체로서 성분등록하지 않고 사료를 제조한 사실이 있어 사료관리법 제12조 (사료의 성분등록 및 취소)의 규정에 의거 행정처분함’이라는 내용의 확인서(이하 ‘이 사건 확인서’라고 한다)를 작성하였고, 그 후 원고 대표이사 소외 3은 2008. 10. 2. ‘영업의 전부 또는 과징금 부과 중 과징금 부과를 신청합니다. 추후에는 이런 일이 일어나지 않도록 하겠습니다’라는 의견제출서를 작성한 후 경상북도지사에게 의견제출을 하였으며, 이에 경상북도지사는 2008. 10. 6. ‘원고가 사료관리법 제12조 (사료의 성분등록 및 취소)를 위반하였다’는 사유로 원고에게 영업의 전부정지 1월에 해당하는 과징금 150만원의 부과처분을 하였고, 원고는 위 과징금을 납부한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

㈏ 그러나 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나 갑 제7호증의 1 내지 4, 을 제12, 15호증, 을 제19호증의 2, 을 제20호증의 1, 2의 각 기재 및 영상과 증인 소외 1의 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 담당공무원인 소외 2는 직접 사료의 생산량과 판매량을 확인한 것이 아니고 당시 원고 상무(성명불상)에게 전화연락을 통해 그 생산량과 판매량을 물어본 후 이 사건 보고를 한 것에 불과한 점(을 제12호증), ② 이 사건 확인서 또한 원고의 대표이사인 소외 3이 날인을 거부하여 담당공무원인 소외 1이 대필로 작성한 것에 불과한 점(을 제15호증), ③ 남은 음식물은 사료 제조의 부원료가 될 뿐만 아니라 퇴비 제조의 부원료도 되고, 사료화시설과 퇴비화시설은 제조공정이 유사하여 퇴비화시설만을 갖추고도 사료를 제조할 수 있어 보이는 점, ④ 소외 1은 단속 당시 공장을 둘러보니까 사료를 만드는데 필요한 부원료가 쌓여 있었고 드럼통 속에 남은 음식물을 사료화 처리한 것이 있어 공장 사장에게 물어보니 시험제조라는 답변을 듣고 단속하였다고 진술하나, 사료와 퇴비를 만드는 재료를 단정할 수는 없다고 진술하고, 원고가 생산한 사료의 양은 모른다고 진술한 것에 비추어 보면, 증인 소외 1의 진술만으로는 원고가 남은 음식물로 사료를 제조하였는지 여부가 불명한 점, ⑤ 원고 대표이사 소외 3은 이 사건과 관련한 형사사건에서 일관되게 사료를 제조한 사실을 부인하였고, 원고 및 소외 3은 대구지방검찰청 의성지청(2009년 형제1160호)으로부터 2009. 5. 12. ‘원고가 2006년경부터 2008년까지 총 3회에 걸친 검사를 이행하지 않은 사료화시설을 사용하여 사료를 생산하여 폐기물관리법을 위반하였다’라는 혐의에 대해서 증거가 부족하다는 사유로 혐의없음(증거불충분)의 불기소 처분을 받은 점을 종합하여 고려하면, 앞서 ㈎항에서 본 것처럼 담당공무원이 이 사건 보고를 하였고 또한 이 사건 확인서를 작성하였으며 원고가 과징금을 납부하였다는 사실만으로는 원고가 사료화시설에 대해서 검사를 받지 않고 나아가 그 사료화시설을 사용하여 사료를 생산하였다는 점을 인정하기 부족하고, 설령 원고가 증인 소외 1의 진술대로 사료를 시험용으로 제조하였다고 하더라도, 이를 두고 원고가 사료화시설을 사용하여 사료를 생산한 것이라고 할 수는 없다고 판단된다.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is justified.

E. Judgment on the third argument by the plaintiff

Even if the Plaintiff’s manufacturing of the feed for testing is deemed to have used the feed-making facility without undergoing an inspection, Article 83(1) [Attachment Table 21] of the Enforcement Rule does not have any effect to the public or the court externally since it is merely a fact that the Plaintiff’s internal rules for handling affairs of the administrative agency are set, ② the Plaintiff’s manufacturing quantity of the feed produced by using the feed-making facility is unclear and it is merely a manufacture for the purpose of selling, not a manufacture for the purpose of testing, and the degree of violation is minor. ③ The Plaintiff’s installation and regular inspection of the compost facility is not intentionally violated because it is deemed that the Plaintiff was not aware of the provision that the feed-making facility should undergo a separate inspection but failed to perform the inspection because it was not well aware of the fact that the Defendant was aware of the above provision, and the instant disposition was taken only after receiving a written petition for the inspection of the feed-making facility. ⑤ In view of the fact that the Defendant might have suffered from the Plaintiff’s disposition of business suspension for three months compared with the public interest purpose of the instant disposition, the instant disposition is unlawful.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is well-grounded.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is urgently needed to prevent damage that may be caused to the plaintiff due to the execution of the disposition of this case, and there is also insufficient data to recognize that suspension of execution may have a significant impact on public welfare. Thus, the execution of the disposition of this case shall be suspended ex officio until the day when the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive.

Judges Hadal (Presiding Judge) Maximum or gender standards