1. The Defendant issued an administrative disposition for the construction waste interim disposal business to the Plaintiff on July 26, 2019 (the revocation of permission).

Details of the disposition

On June 11, 2003, the Plaintiff is a company that runs a construction waste interim disposal business after obtaining a construction waste interim disposal business license from the Defendant.

On February 22, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained a construction waste interim disposal business license (hereinafter “instant change license”) with a construction waste interim disposal business license (hereinafter “instant change license”) that installs circular asphalt concrete production facilities (8 tons/City x 1 type, mobile type, and hereinafter “instant facilities”). Around that time, the Plaintiff reported the commencement of use on April 7, 2017 after installing the instant facilities.

On July 26, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the instant change license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 25(1)1 of the former Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 16317, Apr. 16, 2019; hereinafter “Construction Waste Promotion Act”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not produce or sell recycled asphalt concrete after obtaining the instant change permission, and the instant facility does not obtain quality certification under the Rules on Quality Certification and Management of Recycled Aggregate.”

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the absence of grounds for the plaintiff's assertion as to the whole purport of the pleadings has been engaged in business activities for the production and sale of circular asphalt concrete, including participating in the bidding after the permission for the change of this case, and entering into a service contract. Thus, the ground that there is no record of the production and sale of circular asphalt concrete does not constitute "cases where the plaintiff obtained permission by fraudulent or other illegal means."

The criteria for quality certification asserted by the Defendant cannot be deemed the legal criteria for the installation of the instant facilities, and thus the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff should obtain the said quality certification.