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 an administrative agency that supervises and supervises waste disposal business entities with a license for waste collection and transportation business under Article 25(1) of the Wastes Control Act, where the Defendant collected medical wastes at a national hospital, etc. and transports them through incinerations, etc.

B. From April 27, 2015, according to the special inspection plan on the safety management of medical wastes as of April 23, 2015, the Defendant conducted a special inspection on the actual use of medical waste-generating and disposal companies, including the Plaintiff, for medical waste-generating companies and disposal companies as of April 27, 2015.

As a result, it was found that the Plaintiff transported medical wastes collected from the hospital, etc. to a temporary storage place in the vehicle and returned them to the same vehicle with the loading capacity and transported them to the vehicle as the waste incineration site.

C. On July 7, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 20 million on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 13(1) of the Wastes Control Act and Article 7(1)3 proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On October 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but the said commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on November 7, 2017.

(The basis for recognition) The fact that there is no dispute over the ruling of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (the basis for recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition is procedural defect without undergoing the hearing procedure as prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act. 2) The Plaintiff’s provision of Article 13(1) of the Wastes Control Act and the proviso of Article 7(1)3(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act cannot be subject to any guidance from the Defendant.