logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.06.19 2018구합103968
영업정지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 22, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a license for interim waste recycling business from the Defendant pursuant to Article 25(3) of the Wastes Control Act; and (b) operated a waste disposal business by installing waste timber crushing facilities.

B. The Plaintiff’s facilities based on the Plaintiff’s license for interim waste recycling business are 180 maculator, 24,000 tons per annum, and 960 tons per annum, and one 180 maculator pursuant to the said license.

C. On December 30, 2017, the Defendant received a civil petition, such as “the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the crushing of waste timber.” On the same day, a public official affiliated with the Defendant inspected the Plaintiff’s place of business, and confirmed and discovered the crushing of waste timber using the scrap scraper of 500 mas without the Plaintiff’s permission. The report prepared by the said public official is written in violation of Article 29(1)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act, such as “the modification of the volume exceeding 30/10 of the recycling volume for which the Plaintiff has obtained permission or permission for modification.”

On June 18, 2018, the Defendant issued an order to suspend business for six months from July 9, 2018 to January 8, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not obtain permission, even though at least 30/10 of the recycling volume for which permission or permission for change was granted to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 8, 14, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s crushinged waste timber using a 500-macifor at the time of the detection is merely a test run for the purchase of scrap scrap, and thus, the recycling volume for which permission or permission for modification was obtained.

arrow