1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 8, 200, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant for a comprehensive waste recycling business to produce organic fertilizers by recycling biological residuess from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant permission”), and operated a waste disposal business.

B. Around February 18, 2013, the Defendant received a report from the civil petitioner, and around June 11, 2013, from the office of the horizontal Housing Site Office of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, to the effect that “the Plaintiff dumped or buried the instant wastes in Pyeongtaek-si B, without leaving the Plaintiff’s place of business around February 16, 2013 (vegetable residues; hereinafter referred to as “instant wastes”) from the 1,292 cubic meters of organic wastes, which the Plaintiff brought into the place of business, into the place of business (i.e., the same plant residues; hereinafter referred to as “the instant wastes”), and received notification.”

C. Accordingly, on September 17, 2014, the Defendant revoked the instant permission in accordance with Articles 27(2)1 and 8(1) of the Wastes Control Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff, a waste disposal business entity, dumped or buried the instant wastes in a place other than the place or facility installed by the Defendant, etc. for the collection of wastes (hereinafter “instant unauthorized reclamation”).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that an administrative agency’s disposition, like the instant disposition, does not fall under exceptional cases that need not hold a hearing, and the disposition lacking the procedure constitutes grounds for revocation as an unlawful disposition. However, even if re-designation is conducted upon the Plaintiff’s legitimate request, it should be notified not later than 10 days prior to the re-designation. However, the Defendant notified the date from September 4, 2014, which was the date of the re-designation, on September 2, 2014, prior to the date of the hearing, and thus re-designated.