1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who has obtained permission from the Defendant for a comprehensive waste recycling business and waste collection and transportation business, and operates a recycling business under the mutual ta of the “C” in Yongcheon-si B.

B. On February 26, 2018, the Defendant issued an order to the Plaintiff to suspend the business of collecting and transporting wastes for the reason of a violation of the waste storage standards (out of storage, permitted storage quantity, and storage period) (hereinafter referred to as “order to suspend the operation of wastes”) for two months (out of August 1, 2018 through September 30, 2018) of the suspension of business, and to dispose of waste for the reason of the proper disposal place or for the transportation and storage of waste outside of the recycling place (hereinafter referred to as “order to dispose of waste”), and to dispose of waste for one month of the suspension of business of the business of collecting and transporting wastes for the reason of the transportation and storage of wastes.

C. On July 1, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition on July 1, 2019 to revoke permission for a general waste recycling business on the ground that he/she operated recycling facilities on August 6, 2018 during the period of business suspension specified in the preceding business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition to revoke permission”) and a disposition to suspend waste collection and transportation business for three months on the ground that he/she failed to comply with the preceding business suspension order (hereinafter “instant disposition to suspend business”).

(2) Each disposition of this case including the cancellation disposition of permission and the disposition of suspension of business of this case (hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The facts of no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 (including the provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff has replaced the blades of part of the place of business with the response of the defendant's public official in charge that it is possible to operate a test for the purpose of the replacement and inspection of the blades of the waste treatment machinery even during the period of the suspension of business, and only part of the six steps (the first step machinery was tested and operated for the purpose of the final delivery for the purpose of confirming performance.