1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff is engaged in recycling business at door-si B (hereinafter “instant place of business”) with a license for a general waste recycling business that produces manure by bringing in animal residues (20 tons/day), plant residues (120 tons/day), and interim processed wastes of food wastes (40 tons/day) from the Defendant.

B. On October 23, 2017, the Defendant collected samples for measuring malodor at the instant place of business, and requested the Gyeongbuk-do Health and Environment Research Institute to conduct an inspection of malodor contamination level on the sample. On October 26, 201, the Defendant received from the said Institute the notification that malodor at the instant place of business exceeds the permissible emission level of 20 times (based on 15 times) as a result of the inspection of malodor contamination at the instant place of business.

C. On December 29, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business for one month pursuant to Article 60 of the Wastes Control Act and Article 83(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated matters to be observed by a person who recycles wastes by emitting malodor in excess of permissible emission levels, as seen above.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.

1) In the process of collecting multiple malodor samples on which the instant disposition was based, the Defendant’s public official did not undergo procedures to ensure objectivity and accuracy of measurement results in accordance with fair malodor test standards. 2) The possibility that malodor generated from chemical medicine companies, livestock farmers, and urology factories, which moved in the Plaintiff’s factory sites, might have an impact on samples collected after being introduced into the instant workplace.

3. The Plaintiff’s supply of fertilizers is prohibited from producing fertilizers for a considerable period of time due to the instant disposition.