2. A non-Tex stock company;

3. Scal forest oil company.

4. K.S. stock company;

5. New Daily Co., Ltd.; and

6. Large street Co., Ltd.;

7. 주식회사 에너지네트웍

8. Co., Ltd.;

19. Caskif Industry Co., Ltd.

10. Dongyang Co., Ltd.;

11. Fame environment of stock companies;

12. Cas environmental services company;

A. On November 17, 2009, the government announced at the State Council to reduce the total amount of national greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 by 30% compared to the expected greenhouse gas emissions in 2020, and to this end, the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth (hereinafter “Framework Act”) was enacted on January 13, 2010.

B. On April 14, 2010, the Government introduced the target management system that mainly sets and manages reduction targets every year for greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption enterprises (hereinafter referred to as "management enterprises") with a certain standard quantity of greenhouse gases in accordance with Article 42(5) of the Framework Act and Article 29 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24270, Dec. 27, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act") in order to achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gases, saving energy, and efficient use of energy, and established and managed the target management enterprises for reduction of greenhouse gases, energy conservation, and efficient use of energy for each management business from 2012 through the model operation period for which no target is set in 2011 was set.

C. On May 14, 2012, the Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits”) was enacted to effectively achieve national greenhouse gas reduction targets by introducing a system related to the allocation and trading of greenhouse gas emissions permissible (hereinafter referred to as “emission permit”) allocated to individual greenhouse gas-emitting business entities within the total permissible amount of greenhouse gas emissions, or 'KAU’, which is the weak party to the Credit Guarantee Business, within the total permissible amount of greenhouse gas emissions, in order to achieve the targets of national greenhouse gas reduction (hereinafter referred to as “national greenhouse gas reduction targets”).

D. On January 28, 2014, the Government established a master plan for the first commitment period (hereinafter referred to as “first commitment period”) from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017, in which the three-year period from January 1, 2015, including matters concerning the domestic and overseas status and prospects for the emissions trading system, basic direction for the operation of the emissions trading system, was established.

E. On September 11, 2014, pursuant to Article 5 of the Emission Trading Act, the Government established a national emission permit allocation plan that includes the total permissible amount of greenhouse gas emissions set in consideration of national greenhouse-gas reduction targets, the pertinent commitment period based on total permissible emission allowances and the compliance year’s total amount of emission allowances, and publicly announced on September 16, 201.

F. On September 12, 2014, the Plaintiffs were designated as a business entity eligible for allocation of emission permits (hereinafter “business entity eligible for allocation”) pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Emission Trading Act, as companies that engage in waste disposal business upon obtaining permission under Article 25 of the Wastes Control Act.

G. On September 1 to October 2014, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant, who is the competent authority, to allocate emission permits to tons of comparable CO2 equivalents (tCO2eq) as indicated in the following table during the first commitment period. On December 1, 2014, the Defendant allocated the Plaintiffs with the KAU as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “instant disposition of refusal against the remainder after deducting the allocation from the Plaintiffs’ application quantity”).

Unit: KAU

A person shall be appointed.

아. 원고 성림유화 주식회사, 대길그린 주식회사, 주식회사 에너지 네트웍, 주식회사 코엔텍, 동양에코 주식회사, 주식회사 명성환경은 이 사건 처분에 불복하여 2014. 12.경 피고에게 이의를 신청하였고, 이에 대하여 피고는 원고 주식회사 에너지 네트웍에 대하여만 20,041KAU를 추가로 할당하였고, 원고 성림유화 주식회사, 대길그린 주식회사, 주식회사 코엔텍, 동양에코 주식회사, 주식회사 명성환경에 대하여는 이의신청을 모두 기각하였다.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul Nos. 2, 8, 15, 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs supply heat, steam, electricity, etc. generated in the course of retiring industrial wastes through facility investment, etc. as energy sources to other producers. If an energy consumer replaces the use of fossil fuels by receiving energy sources from the Plaintiffs, the emission of greenhouse gases is offset and no substantial greenhouse gas emissions are emitted. Therefore, in rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant did not deviate from and dispose of the instant disposition by taking into account the degree of contribution to the reduction of national greenhouse gas emissions by utilizing the waste in lieu of the degree of contribution to the achievement of national greenhouse gas reduction targets, and Article 12(2)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27181, May 24, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act”).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether the provision of this case is illegal or not to consider the legal provisions of this case, "the competent authority shall consider the extent that the investment in facilities of business entities eligible for allocation contributes to the achievement of national greenhouse gas reduction targets at the time of allocating emission permits," and "national greenhouse gas reduction targets" under Article 42 (1) 1 of the Framework Act (see Article 2 (3) of the Emission Trading Act). Article 25 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act provides that "National Greenhouse Gas Reduction targets under Article 42 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act shall reduce the total amount of national greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 to 30/100 of the predicted greenhouse gas emissions in 2020," and both the Framework Act and the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act were enacted on January 13, 2010 and enforced on April 14, 2010.

When comprehensively interpreting the provisions of the aforementioned relevant laws and regulations and the purport of the emissions trading system, the competent authority is obligated to take into account the investment in facilities to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions from April 14, 2010, which was enacted and implemented by a business entity eligible for allocation to 30 percent of the total nationwide greenhouse gas emissions forecast in 2020. Therefore, the competent authority is not obliged to take into account the provision regarding the investment in facilities to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions from April 14, 2010 to 30 percent of the total nationwide greenhouse gas emissions forecast in 2020. Therefore, even if the business entity eligible for allocation was a facility investment from April 14, 2010 to 14, 2010, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s allegation was unlawful for the State to take into account the provision regarding the investment in facilities to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions from 200 to 30 percent of national greenhouse gas emissions.

2) Whether the failure to consider the provisions of the former Enforcement Decree is unlawful

Considering the following circumstances, the Plaintiffs’ sales of heat from incineration companies, such as the Plaintiffs, are not subject to the application of the provisions of the former Enforcement Decree of the instant case. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s failure to consider the provisions of the former Enforcement Decree of the instant case is unlawful when allocating emission permits to the Plaintiffs.

① The former Enforcement Decree of this case provides that the entity eligible for allocation shall be construed as a business entity eligible for allocation instead of fossil fuels in the form of "use" rather than "use", which sets forth elements to be considered at the time of allocation of emission permits to the business entity eligible for allocation."

(2) The former Enforcement Decree of the Republic of Korea sets forth the form of "using inflammable wastes instead of fossil fuels," which states that fossil fuels and inflammable wastes should be replaced by another. In other words, it is clear that the same business entity should use inflammable wastes in lieu of fossil fuels used as fuel in its business activities and contribute to the reduction of national greenhouse gas emissions as a result.

(3) At the time when the former Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act was first drafted on July 23, 2012 and was pre-announcement of legislation, the provisions of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act were not included. However, the Korean Pharmaceutical Industry Federation and the Korea Cement Association, to which business entities eligible for allocation, which were or were converting the energy required in industrial processes, into inflammable wastes, have been engaged in the reduction of national fossil fuels due to activities under subparagraph 7 (b) of Article 2 of the Wastes Control Act, additionally changed the level of contribution to the reduction of national use of fossil fuels. As a result of the review of the above recommendations, the government made a proposal to accept the entire proposal, but it is difficult for the government to consider the increase in the quantity of the relevant business itself, but it is necessary to consider that the national greenhouse gas emissions would contribute to the reduction of national greenhouse gas emissions.

④ If an enterprise supplied with heat from waste incineration by the Plaintiffs does not use fossil fuels existing, it does not necessarily contribute to the reduction of national greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, waste incineration supplied to the outside by the Plaintiffs does not necessarily change fossil fuels.

(5) The plaintiffs do not utilize inflammable wastes as an enterprise that incinerates industrial wastes, but rather, as an enterprise that disposes of wastes from the beginning in accordance with Article 25 of the Wastes Control Act, granting benefits to the party that is entitled to emission permits on the ground of its revenue activities unrelated to the efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is inconsistent with the principle of equity between other business entities eligible for allocation and other business entities.

3. Conclusion

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Song Byung-hun

Judges Song Jong-hwan