과징금부과처분취소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.
1. Evidence 【Evidence】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6 (including all types of proof; hereinafter the same shall apply), evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments;
A. The Plaintiffs are those engaged in a waste disposal business with a license for a medical waste collection and transportation business and accepting medical wastes from all the nation-wide hospitals, clinics, research institutes, etc. and transferring them to incinerations, etc., and the Defendant is an institution supervising and supervising waste disposal business entities.
B. Around April 2016, the Defendant conducted a special inspection of the current status of management of medical waste discharged companies and disposal companies, and as a result, discovered the fact that the Plaintiffs collected medical waste from hospitals, etc. to temporarily store the same vehicle and transferred it to the same incineration company.
C. Accordingly, on May 25, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,000 in lieu of one month of business suspension on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated Article 13(1) of the Wastes Control Act, Article 7(1)3(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act,” and on June 9, 2016, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to suspend business for one month on July 7, 2016.
(hereinafter “each of the dispositions of this case”) 2. The plaintiffs asserted that each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate and that each of the dispositions of this case should be revoked on the following grounds.
1) The Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) shall be deemed to be null and void of the relevant statute.
Article 7(1)3 proviso and item (a) of the same Act, and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as “Enforcement Rule”).
(1) Article 9(1) of the Constitution provides that Article 9(1) shall not only excessively infringe the Plaintiffs’ freedom of occupation, etc. against the principle of excessive prohibition, but also be null and void against the principle of clarity. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions based on each of the above provisions is unlawful. (2) The discretionary power is reasonable.