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 operating a place of business where air pollutant emitting facilities (hereinafter “discharge facilities”) are installed in the name of “B” in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On February 26, 2018, the Plaintiff was found to have failed to operate air pollution prevention facilities (hereinafter “prevention facilities”) while operating emission facilities from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on February 13:40.

C. On April 9, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he would suspend the operation for 10 days.

On April 24, 2018, the Plaintiff presented an opinion to the Defendant on the following: “The preventive facilities have been removed due to the high wave during the first and second months, and the current economic situation is difficult.”

On June 8, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of five days (from June 22, 2018 to June 26, 2018) of the suspension of operation to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, 2, and 3 as well as the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. A. A summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around February 2018, when the Plaintiff’s crackdownd, damage was caused to the nation through the Han River wave. The Plaintiff’s workplace also did not operate the discharge facilities and preventive facilities normally due to the removal of water pumps. The Plaintiff did not intentionally operate the discharge facilities and preventive facilities, and the Plaintiff did not emit air pollutants externally, and there is no ground for the instant disposition, i.e., “unfair operation.” There is no ground for the instant disposition, ii) air pollutants partially emitted.

Considering the fact that the amount of damage did not occur due to the minor amount of damage, that the Plaintiff did not receive an administrative disposition due to the emission of air pollutants while operating a place of business between about 20 years, and that the Plaintiff’s transaction partner as well as the Plaintiff’s transaction partner suffered considerable damage due to the instant disposition, the instant disposition was violated the principle of proportionality or abused discretion.