1. The Defendant’s imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,000,000 against the Plaintiff on March 22, 2019 shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in recycling of fluoral soil with organic sludge or produces fluoral soil for landfill facilities.

B. B, on December 27, 2018, upon request from the owner of the land Kim Jong-si Kim (hereinafter “instant land”) to embanking work and improve land for planting trees, B purchased accommodation necessary for the Plaintiff’s work on December 27, 2018.

C. On the other hand, when a civil petition was filed to the effect that malodor occurs in the course of filling up the land of this case on January 2, 2019, the Defendant collected the soil samples from the land of this case on January 22, 2019 and analyzed the ingredients of the soil of this case.

On March 22, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the analysis of ingredients of the sample that it exceeds the standards for accommodation products, and the Plaintiff violated Article 13-2 of the Wastes Control Act. On March 22, 2019, the Defendant issued an order to recover part-to-land beyond the standards, ② a disposition to impose a penalty surcharge of KRW 20 million in lieu of the disposition to suspend business operations for one month, and ③ a disposition to impose a fine of KRW 5 million.

(2) The disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 20 million is hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 13, 16 through 19, and 24, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Attached Form of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not present a specific reason for the instant disposition to the Plaintiff while claiming procedural defects. Since the provision on the grounds of the instant disposition only stated only Article 13-2 of the Wastes Control Act, and did not state several cases, the instant disposition is procedural defect in violation of Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2) The Defendant asserted the absence of the grounds for the instant disposition.