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 November 14, 2005, the Plaintiff reported on the installation of air pollutant emitting facilities (hereinafter “emitting facilities”) to the Defendant on November 14, 2005, who is engaged in painting and other business under the trade name “C” in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On February 26, 2018, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Private Judicial Police Group discovered that the Plaintiff’s place of business operated Aluminium flusium, steinium dynasium facilities, etc. and notified the Defendant of air pollution prevention facilities (hereinafter “prevention facilities”) by operating air pollution prevention facilities.

On the same day, the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation that “I will confirm the failure to operate a facility (150 cubic meters/min) by absorption, which is a preventive facility, while operating an industrial disposal facility, at the said place of business.”

C. On April 13, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of an administrative disposition that the Plaintiff should submit his/her opinion by May 4, 2018, as the Plaintiff would be expected to take a ten-day measure for the abnormal operation of emission facilities.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff submitted a written opinion to the effect that “the emission facilities cannot be operated because they were removed for a long period of time,” and that “the reduction of disposal and the suspension of operation are requested for adjustment of the period of suspension of operation, considering the business difficulties caused by economic depression.”

Date and time of violation: Violation on February 26, 2018: A facility subject to disposition of emission facilities and preventive facilities under Article 31(1)1 of the Clean Air Conservation Act: The period of disposition of emission facilities and preventive facilities: June 22, 2018 to June 26, 2016 (five days): He/she shall be thoroughly supplemented to ensure that the facility is not registered as the same matter.

D. On June 8, 2018, the Defendant issued an order to suspend the operation as follows on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 31(1)1 of the Clean Air Conservation Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] does not dispute, entry in Gap’s 1, 2, and Eul’s 1 through 3, and pleadings.