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 a waste disposal business entity that runs compost production business, etc. using food wastes by having its place of business in the 126-ro, 726-gil, dong-ro, 500.

B. From June 9, 2016 to June 10, 2016, the Defendant received a total of three malodor civil petitions in relation to the Plaintiff’s workplace, and conducted a field investigation on the Plaintiff’s workplace (hereinafter “instant field investigation”) between June 10, 2016 and June 13, 2016, and on June 23, 2016, the Defendant deposited the compost produced by using food wastes on the street and operated the Plaintiff on June 23, 2016 without sealed waste disposal facilities (e.g., waste disposal facilities), on the ground of the violation of the Wastes Control Act.

C. On July 7, 2016, the Plaintiff presented a written opinion to the Defendant on the ground that “a waste treatment business entrusted by a local government due to a disposition of business suspension may be delayed due to a disposition of business suspension.” In the instant field investigation, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was in the process of the instant field investigation, and that the Plaintiff transferred the waste treatment business to a closed facility after the instant field investigation.”

On July 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) before amended Article 60 of the Wastes Control Act; and (b) Article 664 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment on July 21, 2016, the grounds for the disposition that “the Plaintiff made improper storage of products, such as composts, produced by recycling food wastes, and thereby violated Article 25(9) of the Wastes Control Act.”