1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that has completed the registration of measuring agency business for air pollutants, etc. under Article 16(1) of the Environmental Examination and Inspection Act (hereinafter “Environmental Examination and Inspection Act”) and conducts measuring agency business for air pollutants, etc.

B. On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff, who installed and operated a facility emitting air pollutants (hereinafter “emitting facilities”), was commissioned to perform self-measurement of air pollutants by tugboatian (hereinafter “eginna”), and measured the emission amount of air pollutants, such as dust, by visiting Toginna on November 25, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant measurement”). C.

On the other hand, by suspending the operation on the date of the instant measurement, the emission facilities (type 5 other than the mixture facilities) have not been operated normally.

Nevertheless, on November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a atmosphere measurement record as to the instant measurement, and stated “n’tbry” in the column of the collector’s opinion on the collection of samples.

On April 4, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition for the suspension of business against the Plaintiff’s atmosphere measuring agency business (Article 17(1)7 of the Environmental Examination Act (Article 18(1) of the same Act) (Article 16(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (Article 16(1) of the same Act) for three months (Article 17(1)7 of the same Act and Article 16(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that “The Plaintiff knew of the fact that the instant measurement was not operated normally at the time of the measurement (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it violated Article 17(1)7 of the same Act and Article 16(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-2, Eul 1, 5, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff’s employee A, who conducted the instant measurement by the absence of the grounds for disposition, had the date and time of measurement equal to that of the Plaintiff’s demand, and was below the air pollution prevention facilities in cegrasa.