1. The Defendant’s revocation of an order of suspension of operation issued on September 1, 2017 by the Plaintiff for ten days.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity that operates manufacturing facilities at Pyeongtaek-si B’s place of business (hereinafter “instant place of business”) and engages in civil engineering works and manufacturing business of parts of machinery and equipment used for genetic use.

B. On June 16, 2017, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff committed the following acts (hereinafter “instant cause act”); (b) on September 1, 2017, the Defendant issued a ten-day disposition for the suspension of operation under Article 31(1)1 of the Clean Air Conservation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s violation of Article 31(1)1 of the same Act, which constitutes “the act of mixing pollutants emitted from air pollutant-emitting facilities with air to lower the pollution level; and (c) based on the prior notification procedures and hearing procedures.”

The main water disposal facilities (hereinafter referred to as “discharge facilities”) located in the upper end of the next dward, which are main water disposal facilities (hereinafter referred to as “discharge facilities”) which are facilities emitting air pollutants (hereinafter referred to as “discharge facilities,” 0.02 cubic meters from 0.03 cubic meters), and the main water supply facilities (50HP-type 1, 58 square meters-type 14, hereinafter referred to as “instant water supply facilities”) and the joints (20cc x 20cc 5m ; hereinafter referred to as “instant hole”) of the area of the gas supply facilities (hereinafter referred to as “preventive facilities”) connected to the discharge facilities by mixing the air with the pollutants emitted from the discharge facilities (hereinafter referred to as “preventive facilities”), which are connected to the discharge facilities (10HP1 equipment).

(ii)each entry into the outside air inside the preventive facility with drilling and thereby, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments as to Gap's 1, 2, and 5, Gap's 3-1, 2, Eul's 2, 3, 4, and 7;

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 discharges pollutants emitted from emission facilities mixed with air in order to lower the contamination level referred to in Article 31(1)1 of the Clean Air Conservation Act.