1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs, as natural or legal persons producing and selling organic fertilizers, are packing and selling organic fertilizers as packing materials of synthetic resin.

The defendant is entrusted by the Minister of Environment pursuant to Article 38 (2) of the Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources (hereinafter referred to as the "Resources Recycling Act") and Article 48 (3) 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Resource Recycling Act, and the Corporation carries out business activities, such as collecting recycling dues under the

B. Packing materials of synthetic resin were introduced in November 20, 2013 by the former Enforcement Decree of the Resource Recycling Act (hereinafter the same shall apply) which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 24869 on November 20, 2013, and came into effect on January 1, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “EPR system”) on the manufacturer’s responsibility recycling system (Extend Reponity,” hereinafter referred to as “EPR system”), imposing compulsory recycling on the producer from the production to the stage of recovery and recycling, thereby facilitating the recycling of resources.

was incorporated into the subject of this chapter.

C. In 2014, the Defendant, as a producer obligated to recycle under the Resource Recycling Act, violated the obligation to recycle synthetic resin materials and packing materials for organic fertilizers, imposed on the Plaintiffs the imposition of recycling dues or additional dues for the amount of each stated in the “amount of imposition” as of each date indicated in the separate disposition No. 2 “the date of disposal.”

(hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) The former Resource Recycling Act (amended by Act No. 11788, May 22, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) and enforced November 23, 2013.

Article 16 unconstitutionality of Article 16) Article 16 of the former Resource Recycling Act provides for the methods of fulfilling the recycling obligation of producers obligated to recycle to join a recycling business mutual aid association (hereinafter “mutual aid association”) and the payment of contributions.