The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs a general waste treatment business, interim treatment business, etc. in the area of 6,004 square meters and C miscellaneous land of 23,141 square meters (hereinafter “the instant business establishment” in combination) in Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. On April 4, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained a license for interim waste treatment business to operate waste treatment business at the instant plant, and filed a report on the waste recycling business on December 2, 2010.

As a result of the revision of the Waste Management Act, the intermediate waste treatment business was modified on March 23, 2012, and the intermediate waste recycling business was modified on July 24, 2012, respectively.

(c)

From around 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a disposition to order the Defendant to properly dispose of wastes on several occasions on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the standards for waste storage by storing waste in excess of the quantity stored in the instant workplace, or storing waste in the instant workplace outside the storage facility, etc.

(d)

As the Plaintiff failed to comply with the above order for waste treatment, the Defendant revoked the permission for intermediate waste recycling business on August 7, 2017, and the permission for the general waste recycling business on May 15, 2019, respectively.

E. On the other hand, on February 12, 2019, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to dispose of wastes of 21,00 tons of the intermediate recycling business until September 30, 2018, and to complete the disposal of wastes of 4,533 tons of the comprehensive recycling business until February 9, 2019, but the Plaintiff failed to comply with the order until February 11, 2019, with the administrative vicarious execution stating that “in the event of failure to comply with the order to dispose of wastes by April 9, 2019, the administrative vicarious execution should be conducted”.

F. On April 12, 2019, the Defendant vicariously executed the above waste treatment with the Plaintiff on April 12, 2019 pursuant to Article 2 of the Administrative Agent Execution Act from April 2019 to December 2019, and the cost of vicarious execution (the estimated amount 4.4.) in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the same Act.