logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.10.11 2018구합2297
폐기물처리업 허가취소 처분 취소청구의 소
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. The Plaintiff was a corporation established for the purpose of waste treatment business, etc. on February 2, 201, and obtained a comprehensive waste recycling business license from the Defendant on March 29, 2013, and registered as fertilizer production business on August 17, 2015.

B. At the time of the Plaintiff’s establishment, the representative director was Nonparty B, but the representative director was replaced on May 18, 2015, and on October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff’s right to license for waste treatment business to Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), but transferred the Plaintiff’s right to license for waste treatment business again from D on December 15, 2016.

C. On the other hand, around September 2016, a broadcast was published that the Plaintiff buried wastes in the neighboring farmland, and on September 23, 2016, E prepared a written statement to the effect that “A person in charge of waste management in charge of the Defendant’s waste management conducted an inspection on the Plaintiff’s place of business (hereinafter “instant inspection”), and that “B disposed of wastes, such as neglecting waste by neglecting it until now while operating the waste recycling business from April 1, 2013 to June 17, 2015 as the result of the on-site inspection.”

B It confirms that on the same day, the Defendant supplied approximately 50 tons of wastes, the entry into force of which has not been completed on the land in the neighborhood around March 2014, to the Defendant, and distributed wastes over several occasions on which the entry into force has not been completed, such as piling up, etc.

“Around October 27, 2017, the head of the Plaintiff’s factory B and B drafted a written confirmation (No. 4-10 pages). D. The head of the Plaintiff’s factory “B and B” in the name of “B and B” in collusion with the competent authority to leave the wastes located in the Plaintiff’s factory over 17 occasions from April 2013 to April 2015 in a place or equipment installed by the competent authority for the collection of wastes, thereby violating Article 8(1) of the Wastes Control Act; F from October 2015 to August 5, 2016 to a place other than the place or equipment installed by the competent authority for the collection of wastes.

arrow