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

A. On October 21, 1998, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of dismantling non-structures and structures (i.e., construction company as one before the alteration) and registered as an asbestos dismantling or removal business entity under the Occupational Safety and Health Act on September 25, 2009, and applied for change of the business of dismantling or removing asbestos on the ground of change of location on March 2, 2012. During that process, the Defendant, a supervisory authority, inspected the Plaintiff’s statutory requirements for registration on the 23th of the same month.

B. On May 10, 2012, the Plaintiff was found to have failed to meet the human resources standards among the statutory requirements for registration of asbestos dismantling and removal business. On July 13, 2012, the Defendant issued a prior notice to the Plaintiff on the suspension of business, and on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 38-4(6) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act due to the failure to meet the human resources standards among the requirements for registration of asbestos dismantling and removal business operators, the Defendant issued a disposition to suspend the business of asbestos dismantling and removal for the period from July 20 to September 4, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by satisfying the human resources standards under Article 38-4(6) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, Article 30-8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 80-5 [Attachment Table 10-4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

- Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not complete the education for the manager of asbestos dismantling or removal work (18 hours) by March 23, 2012, which is the inspection date of B entered on December 15, 201, after the withdrawal on November 14, 201 by A, a human resources of the registered human resources standard “A”, which is the human resources of “A”, on behalf of the Plaintiff.

- Therefore, the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for human resources under Paragraph A, which are the requirements for the registration of asbestos dismantlers or removers, for at least four months from 2011, 11, 14 to 2012, 3, and 23 as the inspection date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, 9 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not temporarily satisfy the statutory manpower standards on the wind that had new human resources to undergo education other than the education provided for in the statutes due to his/her failure to fully know of the statutes. After examining the registration requirements of the Defendant on March 23, 2012, the Plaintiff immediately ordered B, an employee, to complete the education for the manager of asbestos dismantling or removal works from March 26, 2012 to March 28, 2012. If the degree of the violation is insignificant and it is deemed that a short-term violation can be corrected, the Plaintiff issued a corrective order to take corrective measures limited to the first violation pursuant to attached Table 20 of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, and even if a penalty surcharge may be imposed pursuant to Article 15-3 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, the instant disposition ordering the Plaintiff to suspend his/her business for 1.5 months is an illegal disposition deviating from discretionary power.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On November 14, 201, the Plaintiff’s employee completed the education course for the manager of asbestos dismantling or removal.

2) After that, the Plaintiff did not have employees who completed the education course for asbestos dismantling or removal managers, and did not employ B on December 15, 2012, and had B complete the education course for the supervisor of asbestos dismantling or removal work from December 20 to December 21, 2012.

3) As a result of the investigation by the Defendant, it was revealed that there was a lack of human resources who completed the education for the manager of asbestos dismantling or removal work under the statute, the Plaintiff had B complete the education for the manager of asbestos dismantling or removal work from March 26, 2012 to March 28, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The aforementioned evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 8, 11, and the purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

위와 같은 인정사실에 따라 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ①) 법령에서 석면해 체·제거업자의 인력기준 등록요건으로 석면해체·제거작업 관리자 교육을 이수한 직원을 두게 한 취지는 일정 함유량 및 면적 이상의 석면을 함유한 건축물 등의 해체·제거 작업은 위 교육을 받게 한 자가 관리하게 함으로써 산업재해를 예방하고 쾌적한 작업환경을 조성함으로써 근로자의 안전과 환경 보전을 목적으로 하는 데 그 근본취지가 있다고 할 것인데, 원고가 위 교육을 이수한 직원이 퇴직한 2011. 11. 14. 이후 2012. 3. 25.까지 위 교육을 이수하지 아니한 자로 하여금 약 4개월 넘게 석면해체·제거작업을 담당하게 한 것은 아래와 같은 석면의 위험성에 비추어 그 법규위반의 정도가 결코 경미하다고 할 수 없는 점, ② 석면은 호흡기 질환 뿐만 아니라 폐암 등 치명적인 질병을 유발하기 떄문에 석면해체·제거업무에 종사하는 근로자를 그 유해성으로부터 보호하여야 하고, 이를 위해서는 석면해체·제거업자로 하여금 법령에서 정한 인력기준 등을 제대로 갖추도록 엄격히 요구할 필요가 있는 점, ③ 원고는 1998년부터 건축물 해체 공사를 하여 왔는바, 이처럼 오랜 기간 건축물 해체 공사를 하여 온 원고가 석면해 체·제거작업을 하기 위해 법령에서 정하고 있는 기본적인 인적 요건을 제대로 알지 못하였다는 것은 이해하기 어려울 뿐만 아니라, 원고가 위 요건에 관하여 잘 몰랐거나 또는 그 내용을 오인하였다고 하더라도 그것만 가지고는 인력기준 준수의무 위반을 정당화할 수 없는 점, ④ 석면해체·제거업자로서의 등록요건을 충족하지 못한 경우 산업안전보건법 시행규칙 [별표 20]의 개별기준상 3개월의 업무정지에 처하도록 되어 있음에도 피고는 원고의 사정을 고려하여 1.5개월로 감경하여 이 사건 처분을 한 것으로 특별히 과도하다고 할 수는 없는 점, ⑤ 산업안전보건법 제15조의 3은 안전관리대행기관에 대하여 업무정지에 갈음하여 과징금을 부과할 수 있도록 규정하고 있으나 석면해 체·제거업자에게는 위 규정이 적용되지 않으므로 원고에게 업무정지에 갈음하여 과징금을 부과할 수 있는 근거도 없는 점 등을 종합하여 볼 때 이 사건 처분이 너무 과도하여 재량을 일탈·남용한 것에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다. 따라서 이 사건 처분은 적법하다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Nam Sung-woo

Judges Choi Young-chul

A person shall be appointed.