The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons for this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the second to the second to the third to the bottom). Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, in violation of the relevant statute unconstitutional or unlawful, issued the instant disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff did not dispose of the master waste with chemical origin in compliance with the principles of recycling wastes and matters to be observed as stipulated in attached Table 5-2 (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the instant case”) under Article 13-2 of the former Waste Management Act (amended by Act No. 13411, Jul. 20, 2015; hereinafter the same) and Article 14-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Waste Management Act (amended by Ordinance No. 644, Jul. 21, 2016; hereinafter the same).

Therefore, Article 2-2 and attached Table 4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Waste Management Act, which stipulate the detailed classification of wastes, are stipulated without delegation of superior statutes, and accordingly, the provisions of the instant Enforcement Rule, which stipulate the principles of recycling wastes, shall also be null and void beyond the delegation scope of superior statutes.

The former Enforcement Rule of the Waste Management Act did not define the waste main engineer with the chemical shop, and did not define the waste main engineer with the chemical shop, and as a result, considering the fact that the Plaintiff and the public officials in charge failed to conduct consistent business affairs related to recycling of the waste main engineer, the provisions of the former Enforcement Rule of the Waste Management Act related to recycling of the waste main engineer violates the principle of clarity.

The provision of the instant Enforcement Rule does not determine whether to allow recycling by examining the composition and harmfulness of waste alcoholic beverages, but only determines whether recycling is possible based on the settlement that was used in the process of the main water process.

Therefore, it is difficult to see the suitability of the means, minimum of infringement, and balance of the legal interests, so the provision of the instant enforcement rule is proportional.