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 one of the co-owners of land B and the building of gas stations on the ground, which is a person subject to the control of soil contamination under Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Soil Environment Conservation Act (hereinafter “instant gas station”) established and operated in the said building.

B. On November 25, 2011, the Plaintiff conducted a soil contamination inspection on the site of the instant gas station and its surrounding areas, and the soil contamination level was likely to exceed the level. On April 24, 2012, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to conduct a detailed soil survey, etc. under Article 14 of the Soil Environment Conservation Act.

C. Accordingly, on September 24, 2012, the Plaintiff conducted a detailed soil survey on the site of the gas station in this case and its surrounding areas on September 24, 2012, measured with 16,476.2mg/km exceeding 2,00g/km, which is the standards for concerns over the maximum concentration of soil contaminants.

On September 28, 2012, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to take measures to purify contaminated soil by the period for implementation under Article 14(1) of the Soil Environment Conservation Act until September 30, 2013.

After that, even though the period of implementation of purification measures has been extended on September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff failed to implement purification measures within the extended period of implementation.

On October 16, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to suspend the use of five underground tanks for manufacturing and storage facilities of petroleum (hereinafter “instant facilities”) until receiving a report on performance of purification order pursuant to Article 14(3) and (1) of the Soil Environment Conservation Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s No. 1, 2, and Eul’s No. 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. On July 6, 2015, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, the Plaintiff leased the instant gas station to C, thereby occupying and using the said gas station. While the Plaintiff intended to purify soil contamination of the site of the instant gas station, C may not suspend the business of gas stations.