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. On February 14, 2004, the Plaintiff obtained a license for an intermediate waste disposal business from the Defendant, and then is a waste disposal business entity entrusted with medical waste generated from sick sources and treated by incineration.

B. As a result of the Plaintiff’s workplace guidance and inspection on June 15, 2012, the Defendant discovered the fact that the Plaintiff retired and treated 16,198 kg of the medical wastes entrusted by the hospital more than five days from the date of receipt from the hospital, and on July 25, 2012, on the ground of violation of Article 25(9) of the Wastes Control Act, on July 25, 2012, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,000,000 in lieu of one month of business suspension under Articles 28 and 60 of the same Act (hereinafter “instant first disposition”).

C. As a result of the Plaintiff’s workplace guidance and inspection on August 2, 2013, the Seocheon-gun kept 36 tons of the medical wastes entrusted to the Plaintiff at a place other than the storage facility, and discovered the fact that the treatment period exceeds five to fifty-two days, and notified the Defendant of the fact that the medical wastes were stored. Upon prior notice, the Defendant imposed a warning disposition on the Plaintiff on October 1, 2013 under Article 60 of the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter “instant second disposition”) on the ground that Article 13 of the Wastes Control Act and Article 7(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act violate Article 25(9) of the Wastes Control Act and Article 31(1)6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the excess of the storage period violates Article 28 and Article 60 of the same Act in lieu of business suspension under Article 60 of the same Act (hereinafter “instant penalty surcharge”).

As a result of the guidance and inspection of the Plaintiff’s workplace on September 26, 2013, the Defendant revealed that the Plaintiff was in custody of 100 tons of the medical wastes entrusted to the Plaintiff in a place other than the storage facility, and subject to prior notice, on October 31, 2013, Article 13 of the Wastes Control Act and Article 7(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.