1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is operating a money shed (hereinafter “instant facility”) with the trade name “D” in Asan City B and C.

On October 17, 2016, the Defendant designated and publicly announced the instant facilities as malodor-emitting facilities, other than malodor control areas, pursuant to Article 8-2 of the Malodor Prevention Act, on the ground that “a civil petition related to malodor in the instant facilities continues to be filed for at least one year, and the complex malodor exceeds permissible emission levels at least three times (3 times, August 29, 2013, September 16, 2015, and July 26, 2016).”

(hereinafter “Initial Disposition”). On February 14, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the first disposition and filed a revocation lawsuit with the Daejeon District Court 2017Guhap100863.

The Defendant, on August 30, 2017, in the process of the lawsuit, re-measurable the malodor on the instant facility, and designated the instant facility as a facility subject to the reporting of malodor-emitting facilities, other than the malodor control area, pursuant to Article 8-2 of the Malodor Prevention Act, on the ground that “the complaints related to malodor in the instant facility continue to exist for at least one year, and the complex malodor exceeds permissible emission levels at least three times (3 times, August 29, 2013, September 16, 2015, and August 30, 2017)” as the F of the ASEAN notification in October 16, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On December 6, 2017, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the instant case on the ground that “The first disposition previously rendered by the Defendant by rendering the instant disposition was implicitly cancelled or withdrawn and no existed. Therefore, there is no legal interest in the lawsuit seeking revocation.”

The plaintiff filed an appeal against the above judgment and withdrawn it.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission, Chungcheongnam-do, but was dismissed on February 5, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 9, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 11 through 17, the whole purport of the pleadings, and whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, Article 8-2 (1) of the plaintiff's Act on the Prevention of Malodor of Malodor is one year.