조업정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From May 2006, A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) engaged in the joint gold manufacturing business (hereinafter “A”) has installed and operated emission facilities after obtaining permission to install air pollutants emission facilities (hereinafter “discharge facilities”) pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act.
B. A on November 25, 2015, on the ground that he/she operated emission facilities from the Defendant and failed to operate air pollution prevention facilities, Article 36 Subparag. 6 and Article 31(1)1 of the Clean Air Conservation Act, Article 134(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Clean Air Conservation Act, attached Table 362.
7)(a) The suspension of operation was subject to a disposition of 10 days (the primary violation).
C. On June 7, 2017, the Defendant again conducted a guidance and inspection on the operation of A’s discharging facilities, and discovered that A discharges pollutants discharged from the discharge facilities by mixing the air with the pollutants emitted from the discharge facilities through the main pipes connected to the niversary facilities (hereinafter “instant pipes”).
Accordingly, the defendant on September 8, 2017, Article 36 subparag. 6 and Article 31(1)1 of the Clean Air Conservation Act, Article 134(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Clean Air Conservation Act, and attached Table 362 of the Enforcement Rule of the Clean Air Conservation Act.
7) A. A. Pursuant to the disposition of the suspension of operation for 30 days (the second violation and the suspension of operation for the period from September 25, 2017 to October 24, 2017).
E. A filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 6, 2018.
F. On March 23, 2018, the Defendant again issued a disposition of suspension of operation for the Plaintiff from April 5, 2018 to May 4, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to suspend operation for 30 days (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
G. In addition, on March 29, 2018, A received a summary decision of KRW 2 million in accordance with Article 89 subparagraph 3 of the Clean Air Conservation Act in relation to the above violation from the Head Office of the District Prosecutors' Office, which was rendered by the Head Office of the District Prosecutors' Office.
(Ma) District Prosecutors' Office Mountainous District Prosecutors' Office, 2017, h. (No. 1016).
On the other hand, A is the Changwon District Court 2017 Ma10015 on June 20, 2017.