1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 19, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant for the intermediate waste recycling business from the Defendant to “a business site ordinary wastes (including the addition of waste, scrap metal, waste glass, waste synthetic resin packaging materials, waste fibers (including waste bags, waste bags, and waste shoes)”, and “C” in “S” in “Y” is engaged in the intermediate waste recycling business in the name of business from the business to the business.

B. On November 6, 2018, the Defendant: (a) confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff collected and stored “waste home appliances,” which are not those subject to the Plaintiff’s business license, after undergoing an investigation into the Plaintiff’s place of business; and (b) issued a disposition of business suspension for one month (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the report on change (the type of wastes for non-business purposes) on December 28, 2018.

(A) Article 83(1) [Attachment Table 21] of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act provides that “The Plaintiff was exposed to the Defendant on February 6, 2018 due to the same violation and received warning from the Defendant on March 5, 2018.” Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s violation on November 6, 2018 constituted secondary violation; and (b) applied the administrative disposition criteria under Article 83(1) [Attachment Table 21].

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for administrative appeal on March 25, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the security guards or residents of multi-family housing did not process the 1-family product, and the Plaintiff laid down the waste home appliances in the marina, etc. installed to collect waste plastics or scrap iron, etc., and the Plaintiff brought them into the place of business in the process of bringing the said marina, etc. into the place of business without being confirmed daily.