beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 15, 2011, the Plaintiff, including the parties, etc., was a corporation engaged in food waste collection and disposal business, etc. at 136-11, a 139-ro snow o, Echeon-si, with a license for a comprehensive waste recycling business from the Defendant, and engaged in the business of treating food waste from the said place of business after producing feed and compost.
B. On May 2, 2013, a public official in charge of the Defendant’s public official visited the Plaintiff’s workplace on May 2, 2013 in relation to a malodor civil petition, and collected malodor samples. As a result of the examination of the sample collected, the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff on May 10, 2013 to take measures to reduce malodor to a maximum permissible level pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Malodor Prevention Act on the ground that malodor was detected in a concentration exceeding the permissible level of malodor emission (not exceeding 500 times the dilution 500s) in the Plaintiff’s workplace emission outlet. (2) On July 1, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the scheduled disposition that the Plaintiff would be subject to a fine for negligence of KRW 3 million and one-month suspension of business on the ground that the Defendant violated Article 31(1) of the Wastes Control Act (Standards for Waste Disposal Management).
3) On July 31, 2013, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 20 million in lieu of the disposition of business suspension for the said one month on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant penalty surcharge disposition”).
(C) On October 29, 2013, the Defendant’s public official responsible for the suspension of business as of January 3, 2014, visited the Plaintiff’s workplace and collected malodor samples in relation to malodor civil petitions again on October 29, 2013.
(2) On October 29, 2013, the Defendant: (a) as a result of the inspection of the samples conducted on May 2, 2013, and October 29, 2013, the density (the dilution 500 or below) exceeding the permissible emission levels (the dilution 500 or below) in the Plaintiff’s workplace emission outlet (the dilution 500 or below) (the dilution 14, 2013) was detected; and (b) on November 14, 2013, the malodor is below the permissible emission level pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Malodor Prevention Act.