1. The Defendant’s disposition of inappropriate waste treatment business plan against the Plaintiff on November 27, 2014 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 3, 2014, the Plaintiff treated organic sludge in the B Ilcheon-si B 28,649 square meters (hereinafter “the instant application site”) and entered in a storage place for collecting and transporting organic sludge, which is a waste by the Plaintiff, in a general waste recycling business that produces ridges between the areas (hereinafter “instant business”). The Plaintiff is a mixture of additives using the additives for drinking and producing ridges by gathering and transporting the organic sludge between the areas.

The ridges so harvested are sold by cosmetics and fishing companies, etc., and the ridges are supplied for the purpose of land improvement and landfill soil.

The Defendant submitted a business plan concerning the instant project (hereinafter referred to as “instant business plan”) to the Defendant.

B. On November 27, 2014, the Defendant issued an inappropriate notification to the Plaintiff on the instant business plan on the grounds that (i) the occurrence of malodor caused by the treatment of organic sludge (sewage, wastewater, excreta, and livestock excreta) under Article 25(2)4 of the Wastes Control Act should protect the public interest, such as the protection of the residential life of residents rather than private interests, pursuant to Article 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On January 22, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, and filed an administrative appeal with the Standing Committee on Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals. However, on February 25, 2015, the Standing Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant suffered damage to the surrounding environment due to malodor generation

The plaintiff asserts that the need for the protection of public interest, such as the protection of the residential life, is greater than the plaintiff's private interest, as a disposition ground.

However, this case's disposition is merely a vague trend without reasonable grounds.