1. On January 24, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of ordering the Plaintiff to pay expenses for vicarious administrative execution shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person established for the purpose of waste treatment business, intermediate disposal business of waste timber, etc., and runs intermediate recycling business using waste timber, etc. at 19-16, 489-gil, as in the 00-ro 19-16 (hereinafter “instant place”).

B. On September 12, 2016, approximately 10,000 tons of waste timber loaded at the instant location were the occurrence of a fire that naturally extinguishs inside the country due to chemical factors (hereinafter “instant fire”).

C. On September 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) held an on-site countermeasures meeting for the extinguishing of a fire in the presence of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on September 13, 2016; (b) decided to transport waste timber in burning to a place less than 2 km away from the forest fire and air pollution spread; and (c) leased 167 equipment from September 13, 2016 to September 21, 2016, and transported waste timber loaded to the instant place.

On January 24, 2017, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to pay the amount equivalent to KRW 98,947,520 of the rental cost of heavy equipment to the cost of vicarious administrative execution pursuant to Article 31(4) of the former Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety (amended by Act No. 14553, Jan. 17, 2017; hereinafter “former Disaster Management Act”) and Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on May 8, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant did not implement an emergency safety inspection (Article 30(1)) under the former Disaster Management Act only when the on-site countermeasure meeting was conducted after the occurrence of the instant fire, or issued an order to take safety measures (Article 31(1)) to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant did not comply with the order to take safety measures under Article 31(1) of the former Disaster Management Act.