The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Facts that there is no dispute over the details of the disposition [based on the recognition], Gap 1, 2, Eul 2 (including branch numbers in case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiffs are persons or corporations engaged in the waste disposal business by accepting medical wastes from hospitals, clinics, research institutes, etc. across the country with a license for medical waste collection and transportation business, and transferring them to incinerations, etc., and the Defendant is a management and supervision agency of the waste disposal business.

B. Around April 2016, the Defendant conducted a special inspection of the current status of the safety management of medical wastes against medical waste producers and disposal companies. As a result, the Plaintiffs discovered the fact that the Plaintiffs collected medical wastes from hospitals, etc. to temporarily store vehicles and transported them to the same or small vehicles with loading capacity and transferred them to the same or small vehicles.

C. Accordingly, on February 18, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,00,000 on the Plaintiff Company on the grounds 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 disposition of this case”). 2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiffs asserted 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 excessively infringes the Plaintiffs’ freedom of occupation, etc. against the principle of excessive prohibition, and is null and void against the principle of clarity. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions based on each of the above provisions is unlawful. (2) A deviation from discretion is abuse.