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 reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the court additionally determines the Plaintiff’s assertion under Articles 2 and 3, and thus, 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited.

(1) In addition, the first instance court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable even if the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the appeal do not differ significantly from those alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance court, and all evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined. The Defendant asserts that the Construction Waste Management Act is a special law under the Wastes Control Act, and at least 5 tons of construction waste are subject to the Construction Waste Act, and thus the first instance court erred with regard to the grounds for the first disposition. However, the Defendant’s determination on the grounds for the first disposition is justifiable in that Article 25(5)1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Wastes Control Act (the first instance court’s interim waste disposal business), and Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Construction Wastes Control Act (the second instance court’s interim waste disposal business), as it includes the “construction waste disposal business, the final waste disposal business, the final waste recycling business, the construction waste collection and recycling business, or the first instance court’s interim waste disposal business.”

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a person pursuant to Article 25(2)4 of the Wastes Control Act.