사용중지명령처분취소
1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties run textile manufacturing, salting, and forest processing business, etc. within the general industrial complex B located in Gyeonggi-gun A Daily (hereinafter referred to as the “instant industrial complex”).
B. On November 21, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that wastewater discharge facilities have been installed without permission or reporting, as a result of conducting a field investigation on salt color factories operated by enterprises located in the instant industrial complex, including the Plaintiff and the designated parties.
C. On December 19, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to order the Plaintiff and the designated persons to suspend the use of wastewater discharge facilities (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Articles 71, 44, and 33(1) of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (hereinafter “Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act”) and Article 105 of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff and the designated persons installed wastewater discharge facilities (hereinafter “the instant wastewater discharge facilities”).
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. Considering the legislative intent and purpose of Articles 33 and 44 of the Water Quality Conservation Act, an order of suspension of use under the main sentence of Article 44 of the Water Quality Conservation Act shall be deemed a continuous discretionary act. Even if the Plaintiff and the designated parties used wastewater discharge facilities without permission or reporting under Article 33(1) of the Water Quality Conservation Act, as in the instant case, the Plaintiff and the designated parties provided the Defendant with information on wastewater discharge facilities to the extent equivalent to the permission or reporting, and the Defendant accurately grasps the current status of the unauthorized and unreported wastewater discharge facilities.