과징금부과처분취소
1. On February 18, 2016, the Defendant Company (Plaintiff A, B, Co., Ltd.), C, and D, and Plaintiff Co., Ltd. on April 4, 2016.
The Plaintiffs of the instant dispositions are the persons or legal entities engaged in the waste disposal business by accepting medical wastes from the national hospitals, clinics, research institutes, etc. with a license for medical waste collection and transportation business, and transferring such medical wastes to incineration facilities, etc., and the Defendant is the institutions supervising and supervising the waste disposal business.
On April 2016, the Defendant conducted a special inspection of the current state of safety management of medical wastes against medical waste producers and disposal companies, and as a result, the Plaintiffs discovered the fact that the Plaintiffs collected medical wastes from hospitals, etc. to temporarily store them on the vehicle and transported them to the temporary storage, and transferred them to the same or small vehicle with the loading capacity to the same or small vehicle and transferred them to the incineration company.
Accordingly, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,00,00 on the Plaintiff Company on February 18, 2016, 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.”
(hereinafter “each of the dispositions of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The plaintiffs asserted that each of the dispositions of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, since there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings.
Article 7 (1) 3 proviso and item (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), and Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule") of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule") shall not only excessively violate the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution, but also violate the principle of clarity.
Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case based on the above provisions is unlawful.
Abuse of discretionary power, each of the above.