logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.04.09 2018구합2150
영업허가취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff succeeded to the permission for waste collection and transportation business granted by the Defendant on December 30, 2004 (hereinafter “instant business permission”), and runs the waste collection and transportation business under the trade name of “D” (hereinafter “instant business establishment”).

On December 20, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the instant business license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was engaged in the business of disposing of wastes on July 18, 2017 and August 1, 2017, even though the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of suspending business for a period of one month (hereinafter “existing disposition of suspending business”).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case is determined on the ground that the plaintiff stored wastes in Yangju-si E, E, F, and G land, which is an inappropriate place for the waste storage place. This is merely against the plaintiff's ground that each of the above lands prior to the lease of this case by the plaintiff as the place of this case is used as an open site for waste. The ground for disposition that the plaintiff did not replace the number plate of the vehicle transporting waste with the yellow Nos. 1, 1, and 3 through 7 is unfair, and the ground for disposition that the removal of remaining substances caused by fire that occurred at the place of this case was delayed on September 2, 2013 is unlawful because it is too harsh to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the instant disposition on the ground that the business was conducted during the business suspension period is also unlawful.

The plaintiff operated businesses inevitably during the business suspension period due to the reasons such as maintaining existing business partners and paying wages to employees, and the removal of fire remains.

arrow