1. The Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,00,000 on the Plaintiff A on May 25, 2016, and imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,000 on the Plaintiff B on July 7, 2016.

The Plaintiffs are those engaged in the waste disposal business by accepting medical wastes from hospitals, clinics, research institutes, etc. nationwide with permission for medical waste collection and transportation business. The Plaintiffs are the institutions that manage and supervise the waste disposal business.

On April 2016, the Defendant conducted a special inspection of the current state of 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 and transport them to the same vehicle and transferred them to the same vehicle with the loading capacity to the same vehicle.

Accordingly, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,00,00 in lieu of one month of business suspension on May 25, 2016, on the ground 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,” and on June 9, 2016, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff B to suspend its business for one month on July 7, 2016.

(hereinafter “each of the dispositions of this case”). (hereinafter “each of the dispositions of this case”), without dispute, the plaintiffs asserts that each of the dispositions of this case of this case should be revoked on the following grounds as to whether the dispositions of this case are legitimate as to Gap’s 1 through 3, Eul’s 6 (including each number), Eul’s 2’s entries and the purport of the whole pleadings.

Article 7 (1) 3 proviso and item (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), and Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule") of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule") shall not only excessively violate the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution, but also violate the principle of clarity.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case based on the above provisions is unlawful.

3.2.