1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in the business of importing, exporting, and selling vehicles, and the Defendant is a corporation that is delegated by the Minister of Environment with the business of calculating recycling charges and issuing payment notices pursuant to Article 38(2) of the former Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources (Amended by Act No. 11788, May 22, 2013; hereinafter “former Resource Recycling Act”) and Article 48(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Resource Recycling Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24869, Nov. 20, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Resources Recycling Act”).

B. The Defendant applied Articles 16 and 19 of the former Resource Recycling Act and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act [for the 2008 year portion, Articles 16 and 19 of the former Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources (amended by Act No. 8948 of Mar. 21, 2008), Articles 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21415 of Apr. 6, 2009), Articles 16 and 19 of the former Resource Recycling Act, Articles 12 and 18 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21415 of Dec. 31, 2009); Article 18 of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21958 of Dec. 31, 2009); Article 25 of the same Act for the portion of 2009 year portion, Article 16 and Article 18 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Resource Recycling Act (hereinafter referred to “former 297”).

(hereinafter referred to as “each disposition of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence No. 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1.