beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 22, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained a license for the business of collecting and transporting medical wastes from the Defendant, and runs the business of accepting medical wastes from hospitals, clinics, research institutes, etc. and transferring them to incineration houses, etc.
B. On July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff’s staff A collected medical wastes from the Incheon Hospital, etc. and transported the said medical wastes to the place of business of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) that is another medical waste disposal business entity, by operating the instant vehicle. The Defendant stopped the instant vehicle on the roads adjacent to the location of the non-party company’s place of business (Kcheon-gun E), and inspected the inside of the vehicle, and as a result, the load temperature of the vehicle was not operated with the cooling equipment inside the instant vehicle, and thereby, the load temperature was loaded on May 4, 200, Article 13(1) of the Wastes Control Act, Article 7(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act, Article 14 [Attachment Table 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.
2) The Plaintiff was exposed to 27.8C. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business and of fine for negligence of KRW 4 million to the Plaintiff on October 8, 2013, based on Articles 68(1) and 60 of the Wastes Control Act, following the Plaintiff’s prior notification procedure. On November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to change the disposition of suspension of business to the disposition of imposition of penalty surcharge, and the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request, imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 16,66,600 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 16,66,600 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
D) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on April 29, 2014, against the Defendant’s instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on April 29, 2014. [In the absence of a dispute over the grounds of recognition, the entries in Gap’s 1 through 4, Eul’s 1 and 3 through 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
2. The instant disposition is made.