[2] The case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle on the ground that the above disposition was unlawful since it cannot be subject to an administrative disposition such as business suspension under Article 27 (2) 11 of the Wastes Control Act, in case where a waste intermediate disposal business operator who did not install feed-making facilities or undergo a regular inspection among food waste disposal facilities, since he did not undergo an inspection of feed-making facilities

[2] In a case where an intermediate waste treatment business operator who did not install and undergo a regular inspection of feed-making facilities among food waste treatment facilities is subject to an administrative disposition such as business suspension under Article 27(2)11 of the Wastes Control Act, the case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the intermediate waste treatment business operator used the feed-making facilities, on the ground that the above disposition was unlawful, since it is not subject to an administrative disposition such as business suspension under Article 27(2)11 of the Wastes Control Act, even if he did not use the facilities unless he did not undergo an inspection on the waste treatment facilities in violation of Article 30(1) and (2) of the Wastes Control Act, it is subject to an administrative disposition such as business suspension under Article 27(2)11 of the Wastes Control Act.

Article 30 (1) and (2) of the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that a person who has completed the installation of a waste disposal facility prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment and a person who has installed and operated such facility shall undergo an inspection by an inspection institution prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, and Article 30 (3) of the Act provides that a person who has failed to undergo the inspection shall not use the facility determined to be appropriate for the said inspection. Article 27 (2) 11 of the Act provides that a person who has failed to undergo an inspection in violation of Article 30 (1) and (2) of the Act or uses a waste disposal facility determined to be appropriate for its violation of Article 30 (3) of the Act shall be able to take an administrative disposition, such as business suspension. Article 30 (1) and (2) of the Act provides that a person who has failed to undergo an inspection at the time of the installation of a waste disposal facility shall be deemed to have violated Article 30 (3) of the Act and shall not be subject to an inspection under Article 17 (2) of the Act.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the disposition of this case against the plaintiff was unlawful, on the premise that the plaintiff's failure to undergo an inspection on the feed-making facility cannot be subject to an administrative disposition such as business suspension under Article 27 (2) 11 of the Act, and that the plaintiff could have used the feed-making facility without undergoing an inspection on the feed-making facility, and on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff used the feed-making facility, and thus, it was found that the disposition of this case which imposed three months on the plaintiff for business suspension. The above judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for administrative disposition following the non-performance of the duty to undergo

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)