1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 17, 1969, the Plaintiff was established as the Japanese chemical and industrial company, and was converted into the Japanese chemical and industrial company on February 23, 197, and was changed to the trade name as of December 29, 199. On October 1969, the Plaintiff constructed a new factory in Busan around December 26, 1969 and manufactured asbestos products, such as asbestos company, asbestospos, etc., from around December 1969. On March 26, 1990, the Plaintiff closed the above factory and moved the factory to the quantity, and suspended the production of asbestos products until the end of July 30, 1991 with the permission for the use of asbestos manufacturing until the end of 2006, and returned the permission for the use of asbestos manufacturing on January 31, 2007.

B. In accordance with Article 33 of the Asbestos Injury Relief Act, effective January 1, 2011 (hereinafter “instant legal provision”), the Defendant imposed special contributions for asbestos injury relief on the Plaintiff every quarter from 2011 on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “business owner who establishes and operates a place of business with the aggregate amount of asbestos permitted to manufacture or use 10,000 tons or more” (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On March 30, 2016, the Defendant imposed KRW 9,422,010 as special contributions for asbestos injury relief every quarter from March 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the legal provision of this case violates the principle of excessive prohibition and the principle of equality as follows, and thus, the instant disposition based on the legal provision of this case is unlawful.

1 The volume of asbestos treated in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition cannot be a legitimate basis for determining whether to apply the special contribution rate, and the place of business bearing the special contribution pursuant to the provisions of the Act of this case is less than five nationwide, and is not suitable as a means for securing finances.

The legal provision of this case goes against the minimum requirements for damage and infringes on the public interest because it does not stipulate the completion period of special contributions.