(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.02.15 2018구단11307

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.02.15 2018구단11307

영업정지 및 폐기물 처리명령 처분 취소 청구

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that engages in interim waste recycling business in racing-si B (hereinafter “instant place of business”) upon obtaining permission from the Defendant [total permissible storage quantity: 895.5 tons of waste (i.e., waste synthetic resin 490.5 tons of interim waste storage place)].

B. On June 24, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension under Articles 25(9)2 and 60 of the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter “Act”) and an order of waste disposal under Article 39-3 of the same Act (amended by August 31, 2016) on the ground that the Plaintiff kept the Plaintiff in excess of the permissible waste storage quantity on June 16, 2016.

C. On July 27, 2017, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 15 million in lieu of one month of business suspension under Articles 25(9)1, 28, and 60 of the Act on the ground that the Plaintiff did not keep approximately 400 tons of waste in an appropriate place on July 6, 2017, and issued a waste disposal order under Article 39-3 of the same Act (til October 2, 2017), and subsequently changed the period of the order to dispose of waste until November 10, 2017.

The defendant against the plaintiff on December 6, 2017, and the plaintiff on December 6, 2017.

Article 27(2), Article 39-3, and Article 60 of the Act on the ground that he/she failed to comply with the order to dispose of wastes in the port was ordered to suspend business operations for three months and order to dispose of wastes (the second second second part).

E. On June 27, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business under Articles 25(9)1 and 60 of the Act (hereinafter “instant disposition of suspension of business”) and an order of disposal of waste under Article 39-3 of the same Act (i.e., an order of disposal of waste synthetic resin kept outdoorly from June 27, 2018 to September 26, 2018; hereinafter “instant order of disposal”) on the ground that the Plaintiff kept approximately 700 tons of waste synthetic resin externally and did not keep wastes in an appropriate place.

The instant disposition of suspension of business and the instant case.

참조조문

-폐기물관리법 제25조 제9항 제2호

-폐기물관리법 제60조

유사 판례

-광주고등법원 2017.06.22 2016누4880

-창원지방법원 2020.07.22 2019구단12358

-서울고등법원 2015.04.01 2014누68517

-대구지방법원 2015.06.03 2015구합21041

-수원지방법원 2019.11.21 2019구합65772