1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff obtained permission for the establishment of a non-profit corporation on September 26, 200 (hereinafter “instant permission”) from the Defendant to vicariously perform the obligation of producers obligated to recycle lighting fixtures products (hereinafter “the producer or importer of light light”). On December 18, 2003, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the establishment of a recycling business mutual aid association (hereinafter “mutual aid association”) pursuant to Article 27(4) of the Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources (hereinafter “Resources”) (hereinafter “instant authorization”).
B. On December 30, 2014, the Defendant revoked the instant permission and the instant authorization, respectively, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the law (Article 38 of the Civil Act in the case of permission for establishment of a nonprofit corporation, Article 28-5 of the Resource Recycling Act in the case of a mutual aid association), “the violation of the conditions of permission for establishment, and the violation of
(hereinafter referred to as the "each disposition of this case" in total of the revocation of permission of this case and the revocation of authorization of this case). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. To make entries in attached Form 1 of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. 1) With respect to procedural defects, the Plaintiff’s assertion stated “legal violation (Article 38 of the Civil Act), violation of the conditions of permission for incorporation, public interest damage,” and “legal violation (Article 28-5 of the Resource Recycling Act), violation of the conditions of permission for incorporation, and infringement of public interest,” on the grounds of the revocation of the authorization in this case, and there is no concrete doubt as to whether the Plaintiff’s act constitutes grounds for disposition on the ground of unsatch. In addition, each of the dispositions in this case was unlawful since each of the dispositions in this case was in violation of the duty to present reasons for disposition. 2) The Defendant was found to have violated the duty to present reasons for the disposition in this case) on eight occasions from March 6, 2014 to October 21, 2014.”