1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a company with the purpose of installing and operating heat cogeneration power facilities used as fertilizers in which livestock excreta and food spawn are put into effect by inserting microorganisms, producing electricity through mertan gas and heat energy generated in the process.

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for three months (from December 30, 2015 to March 29, 2016) pursuant to Articles 30, 27(2)11, and 60 of the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “a person who has completed installation of waste disposal facilities shall undergo an inspection by an inspection institution, but has used waste disposal facilities that failed to be determined as appropriate in the inspection” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleading is legitimate. First, the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition is legitimate, the plaintiff's use of waste disposal facilities to undergo the installation inspection after receiving the installation inspection of waste disposal facilities from the Korea Testing Laboratory on August 26, 2015. Thus, the plaintiff's failure to undergo the installation inspection from the inspection institution does not constitute an act of failing

In addition, the plaintiff extended the power generator, pipes, and storage tanks to supplement the problems discovered in the course of the trial operation for the installation inspection of waste disposal facilities, and the installation inspection is delayed, and it does not use waste disposal facilities without being installed inspection.

Therefore, the instant disposition does not have any grounds for disposition.

Second, the Defendant’s permission to conduct a comprehensive waste recycling business on November 20, 2013 is a procedural defect without examining whether the conditions prescribed by the Wastes Control Act are met. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful to transfer the Defendant’s administrative procedure error to the Plaintiff.

Third, the plaintiff.