폐기물처리업 영업정지 처분 취소청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The plaintiff's ground for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance. Thus, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance, even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is added to the evidence submitted in the court of
Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for a partial dismissal or addition as follows. As such, the reasoning for the court’s explanation is citing it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Supplementary or supplementary parts] Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to the 3rd of each 5th of each 5th of each 5th of each 3rd of the judgment of the court of first instance.
No. 15 of the 11th judgment of the first instance shall be written by adding "No. 11" to "No. 19".
Article 29 "Article 29" in Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance shall be applied to "Article 25."
On the other hand, the Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4150 Decided December 8, 2005, which referred to the above Decision 2004Do4150 Decided December 8, 2005, referring to the above Decision 2004Do4150 Decided December 8, 2005, which found that the wastes have polluted the surrounding environment by storing and treating them in violation of the standards and methods of storage and disposal, etc., in order to punish the violation of subparagraph 1 of Article 61 of the former Wastes Control Act before the whole amendment by Act No. 8371 on April 11, 2007, the act of storing and treating wastes in violation of the standards and methods such as the storage and disposal of wastes shall be punished pursuant to Article 63 (1) 1 of the former Wastes Control Act, and in such case, it can only be punished by a fine for negligence pursuant to Article 63 (1) 1 of the former Wastes Control Act.
The same requirement as "a person who has contaminated the surrounding environment" is determined as "a person who has contaminated the surrounding environment".