1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(Other matters alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, and even if all of the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial are examined, the fact-finding and the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable). [The part to be examined] The reasoning of the first instance judgment is different.

An appeal (from 2 pages 18 to 3 pages 6) shall be raised as follows:

C. Meanwhile, according to Article 6(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the instant Ordinance, an entrusted management company shall regularly measure the water quality of a building being entrusted and keep the results thereof for three years.

However, B, the actual operator of the Plaintiff, in collusion with the measuring agent without measuring the quality of the personal sewage treatment facilities entrusted by the Plaintiff from February 7, 2013 to March 22, 2016, issued a false statement of water quality testing results on 2,675 occasions, and recorded the false results of the measurement and analysis in collusion with the measuring agent. Notwithstanding the intention to submit a false statement of water quality testing without conducting the water quality inspection even if he/she received the subsidies in advance, he/she received the subsidies and submitted the false statement of water quality testing results after receiving the subsidies to the extent that it is true through normal water quality measurement. From March 27, 2013 to December 7, 2015, he/she was convicted of the Defendant’s total 324,797,50 won as subsidies for the management of private sewage treatment facilities, and on June 16, 2017, the government district court was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Environmental Act and the Environmental Testing and Inspection Act for two years.