The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the provisions of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act are not applicable to cases where the disposal of neglected waste was conducted in accordance with the procedure under Article 40(4) of the Waste Management Act, and therefore, the expenses incurred in the disposal of neglected waste cannot be deemed as “expenses incurred in large execution” under Article 6(2) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and that the Plaintiff is not subject to transfer of the legal status of the Saemangeum Regional Environmental Office in accordance with the

There is no error of misunderstanding the interpretation and application of the Wastes Control Act and the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, or the legal principles on claims transferred by subrogation.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus, are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.