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

A. Status of the parties

1) The Plaintiff’s purpose is the construction, management, and operation of energy production facilities, such as a heat consolidated power plant (hereinafter “electric power plant in this case”), and the group produced at energy production facilities, and the supply and sale of energy such as electricity, such as electricity, constitutes a company that discharges greenhouse gases and consumes energy exceeding the standard quantity stipulated under Article 42(6) of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth (hereinafter “Green Growth Act”) and Article 29(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

2) The Government shall establish mid- to long-term and phased targets for greenhouse gas reduction, energy conservation targets and energy utilization efficiency targets, targets for energy self-reliance, and targets for new and renewable energy distribution to cope with global greenhouse gas reduction actively and efficiently, and shall take measures necessary for accomplishing such targets (Article 42(1) of the Green Growth Act). The Government shall set and manage targets for each controlled entity in a manner that can be measured, reported, and verified (Article 42(6) of the Green Growth Act) to achieve the above targets (Article 42(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Green Growth Act). The Minister of Environment shall perform the overall and coordination functions for the target management (Article 26(1) of the Green Growth Act), the relevant central administrative agency by sector shall take charge of matters concerning the setting, management, and necessary measures for each sector under his/her jurisdiction (Article 26(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Green Growth Act), and the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy to which the Defendant belongs is a central administrative agency in charge of industrial development (Article 26(3)2)

(b) Obligation of a controlled entity to report;

1) Each controlled entity shall prepare a statement of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption for the pertinent year for each place of business, along with the results of the verification by the verification body, and submit it to the agency responsible for each sector in electronic form by March 31 of the following year (Article 44(1) of the Green Growth Act and Article 34(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act).

2) A controlled entity shall calculate greenhouse gas emissions by classifying them into direct and indirect emission (referred to as “emitting, discharging, or leaking greenhouse gases generated by human activities” and “emitting greenhouse gases by using electricity or heat (limited to those generated from fuel or electricity) supplied by another person)” (Article 2 Subparag. 10 of the Green Growth Act, Article 85(2) of the Guidelines on the Management, etc. of Greenhouse Gases and Energy (wholly amended by the Ministry of Environment Notice No. 2016-256, Dec. 30, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines”), and shall calculate the emission levels by observing the minimum classification of emission facilities in accordance with the size and detailed emission activities (Article 87(1) of the Guidelines), and Article 85(1) of the Guidelines shall be calculated at least 50,00 tons of emission facilities at least 3 (Ti-20,000 tons of emission facilities at least annually (Article 37(1) of the Guidelines).

3) If a controlled entity supplies heat outside the organizational boundary, and is a heat supplier produced in a heat co-production facility, it must develop a emission coefficient according to the heat supply and provide heat to the controlled entity using heat (Article 95(1)2 and attached Table 27). The calculation methods set out in the instant guidelines are as follows:

1. The emission quantity of facilities exclusively for calculating greenhouse gas emission according to the heat production in heat-only production facilities shall be calculated according to the calculation methodology of fixed exhaust activities in attached Table 16.2. The emission quantity of facilities exclusively for calculating greenhouse gas emission according to the heat-only production facilities shall be calculated according to the calculation methodology of fixed exhaust activities in attached Table 16.

4) A controlled entity may develop its own method of calculating greenhouse gas emissions, etc., higher accuracy than that specified in the instant guidelines, and utilize it in calculating greenhouse gas emissions, etc. (Article 87(3) of the instant Guidelines). In such cases, controlled entities shall undergo the procedures of notification of methods of self-development calculation, the submission of development plans by place of business, the submission of self-development methodology, the methods of self-development calculation, and the results and basis of the development of unique emission coefficient by place of business, the submission of the results and basis thereof, the review conducted by the agency responsible for each sector and the results of the review conducted by the Minister of Environment, the confirmation of the Minister of Environment, the notification of the results of verification to controlled entities, and the notification of the results

1) On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a specification of greenhouse gas emissions and amount of low energy emissions in 2016 (hereinafter “instant specification”) by electronic means. The main contents of the instant specification are as follows.

1. General information on controlled entities 1-3. Business entity (corporate)’s total greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption 2.2-2. Business establishment’s organizational boundary input (1) organizational boundary-based classification - process level (including greenhouse gas and energy flows level): Total greenhouse gas emissions (tCO2-eq): 79,3520 business establishment’s total amount of energy consumption (T): 8,685(= energy 8,283 + 394 + 394 + 8 of power capacity) [* “1 carbon dioxide equivalents” means the amount equivalent to one ton of carbon dioxide or 1 ton of other greenhouse gases as defined in subparagraph 9 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits (Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits)];

2) On April 27, 2017, the Korea Energy Agency requested the Plaintiff to submit data (Tier 3 development report, calculation sheet, etc.) to verify the propriety of the instant specification. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted all relevant data to the Korea Energy Agency related to the said request. The main contents of the Plaintiff’s “greenhouse gas emissions volume, Ti-3 emission index development vision, and greenhouse gas team emission index development set” are as follows.

1. Calculation (Boiler 2 ) of the FUT Energy 3. MoUT Energy 4. Efficiencyer 2. 1. MoUT Energy 4. MoUT Energy 1. MoUT Energy 2. MoUT 2. MoUT Energy 2. MoUT Energy

3) On July 27, 2017, the Korea Energy Corporation Reviewed the adequacy of the instant specification, as follows, presented the Plaintiff’s review opinions on July 27, 2017, to ensure that the indirect emission coefficient conforms to the basic value (heat production efficiency: 0.8, electricity production efficiency: 0.35): 85,139gHG/TJ, CH4: 0.867gGH/TJ, NO: 1.2803gGH/TJ).

[Guidelines for the Development of Emission Coefficient of Business Place] Criteria is inappropriate for each item between heat production and sales-purchasing companies. As such, the final determination of the emission facility is detailed 1.2013 to 2015, the power and heat efficiency of the emission facility were applied as set out in the 35,80 guidelines. However, as a result of the change of the efficiency in 2016, the production efficiency applied at the time of development of the emission coefficient from 2.00 to 2016, which is not the efficiency applied at the time of actual development of the emission coefficient (the 'production efficiency' at the bottom of the table of the automatic calculation sheet). 3. The development efficiency applied at the time of development of the emission coefficient is the value to be used as the variables to classify the greenhouse gas emission from the total greenhouse gas emission of the emission facility to the energy generated in the facility and the energy generated in the facility, and should be developed directly from the heat production efficiency.

4) On September 12, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Korea Energy Corporation to re-examine the application of heat and electricity production efficiency calculated using its own data, as well as an additional calculation methodology as shown in attached Table 1(1). However, on September 27, 2017, the Korea Energy Corporation confirmed that there was no data measurement on the self-data necessary for calculating the heat and electricity production efficiency at the on-site inspection conducted by the overall control agency and the competent agency on July 26, 2017, and submitted by the Plaintiff that the heat and electricity production efficiency presented by the Plaintiff is difficult to calculate the inherent emission coefficient (Ti3) of the workplace.

5) On October 25, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Korea Energy Corporation could not apply the basic value stipulated in the instant guidelines as it is and demanded to request the response to review each calculation methodology listed in attached Table 1 List 1. Accordingly, on November 23, 2017, the Korea Energy Corporation: (a) in order to assess the heat and electricity production efficiency because all the fuels charged to the Plaintiff were used in the heat and electricity production, it is necessary to measure energy consumption, etc. to confirm the degree of the input fuel’s contribution to the heat and electricity production; and (b) the Plaintiff calculated the heat and electricity production efficiency based on the Heat Power Calculation Research (the publication of the Korea Land Corporation; hereinafter referred to as the “the instant report”), but since the heat and electricity production efficiency stated in the instant report is different from the heat and electricity production efficiency stated in the instant guidelines, each of the response submitted by the Plaintiff as of September 12, 2017 cannot be accepted.

6) On December 27, 2017, the Plaintiff presented an additional calculation methodology, as described in attached Form 1(2), stating that “the calculation method developed by the Plaintiff itself reflects the actual status of the Plaintiff’s heat cogeneration power generation facilities, and the competent authority lack of legal grounds for refusing the use thereof.” The enforcement of the basic value of the guidelines in this case is significantly harsh to the Plaintiff as it would allocate emission coefficient at home, which does not fit the Plaintiff’s current status.” The Plaintiff also presented an additional calculation method as described in attached Form 1(3) with each of the calculation methods described in attached Form 1(3) and then requested the Plaintiff to present its opinion. However, on January 4, 2018, the Corporation issued by the Plaintiff each of the calculation methods presented by the Plaintiff, which was impossible for the Plaintiff to distribute greenhouse gas emissions from total greenhouse gas emissions to the Plaintiff, and the Korea Energy Corporation’s opinion on the production efficiency calculated by dividing the heat production efficiency by 17, which was included in the calculation method by 10th of the total energy output output.

D. Defendant’s measures as to the instant specification

1) On February 22, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant specification by March 9, 2019 according to the final review by the Defendant and the Ministry of Environment. The gist of the final review by the Defendant and the Ministry of Environment is as follows.

[Final Review Results by the Defendant] 0 Review Method 3 and 4 of the attached Table 1 List 3-A-D of the attached Table 1 that each calculation method in paragraphs 3 and 4 is in violation of the requisite medication conditions (the heat that is put into the heat production at the time of calculating the heat production efficiency) when calculating the heat and the electricity production efficiency, and thus, it is inherent in calculating the electricity production efficiency by excluding the small consumption power amount from the total electricity output at the time of calculating the electricity production efficiency. Each calculation method in paragraphs 3-B-E of the attached Table 1 that the combination of the essential medication conditions at the time of calculating the heat production efficiency (the heat that is put into the heat production at the time of calculating the heat production efficiency) is against the existing energy management corporation (referring to the report of this case). The calculation method in paragraphs 4 is presented by the Plaintiff, which has an error in calculating the results at the time of reverified the submitted design value data, based on the production efficiency calculation method based on the previous data (the report of this case).

The efficiency and meaning applied when calculating the actual gas emissions are calculated by the Plaintiff itself is not used, and accordingly, it is necessary to revise and supplement the specification of this case by applying the basic value of the thermal power production efficiency (the final review result of the Ministry of Environment) (the calculation method stated in Section 3(b) of the attached Table 1 table that there are errors such as Balance, steam sales, internal consumption heat, etc. in the basic data submitted by the Plaintiff as a result of 0 review (the final review result of the Ministry of Environment). The calculation method stated in Section 3(b) of the attached Table 1 table presented by the Plaintiff that there is an error in calculating the efficiency of electricity production, including the heat consumption in input energy, in calculating the overall efficiency of the heat integrated development system from a technical point of view, the efficiency of concept different from the efficiency applied when calculating the total efficiency of the heat integrated development system in calculating the greenhouse gas emissions, and the review content of the Plaintiff's conclusion that the comparison itself goes beyond the scope of the system, which is not meaningful.

2) On March 9, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that “the final review results by the Defendant and the Ministry of Environment are not reasonable, and that the Plaintiff should apply the calculation methodology developed by itself.”

3) On March 30, 2018, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to correct the instant statement by April 13, 2018 in accordance with the latter part of Article 44(2) of the Green Growth Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s own emission coefficient inherent in the place of business, which was calculated by the Plaintiff, is in excess of the quantity of domestically consumed power, and cannot be accepted due to errors such as failure to compute the calculation formula by the presented data, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries, Gap's 1, 2, 5 through 14, 17 through 19, 22 through 24, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

A. The basis for the instant disposition is not specified specifically. This is against Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

B. substantive defect

1) In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant added the assertion that there is an error in calculating the efficiency of heat and electricity production, which stated that there is no reliable survey data necessary for calculating the efficiency of heat and electricity production, and that there is an error in calculating the efficiency of water supply by calculating the current heat of water supply from the heat holding heat of the steam to the excessive calculation of input fuels, and that there is an error in calculating the heat and electricity production efficiency.

However, each of the above arguments is not included in the grounds for disposition at the time of the instant disposition, and is different from the original grounds for disposition. Therefore, additional grounds for disposition, such as each of the above arguments, should not be allowed.

2) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

A) Before submitting the instant specification regarding the calculation method of the amount of the internal consumption power, the verification was completed by already being pointed out by the verifying agency, which was corrected and supplemented. In other words, there is no special error with respect to the amount of the internal consumption power. Therefore, the Defendant’s point of view that it is erroneous in the possession of an excessive calculation of the amount of the internal consumption power is unreasonable

B) The Defendant did not clearly explain not only the instant disposition, but also the instant lawsuit that did not specifically explain how the formula for calculating the figures in the instant specification was not established, and thus, the Plaintiff did not accurately know the meaning of the grounds for disposition. In addition, there was no veterinary error in the formula contained in the instant specification, and the Plaintiff had already presented the evidence and calculation method for each numerical value to the Defendant, and there was no error such as failure to establish the calculation formula listed in the instant specification.

C) Even if the Defendant could assert that there is no reliable survey data necessary for calculating the heat and electricity production efficiency in the instant lawsuit, as long as the Plaintiff already presented the survey data to the Defendant, which serves as the basis of the instant specification, the said assertion is unreasonable.

D) Even if the Defendant is able to assert that there is an error that the Defendant calculated the heat of water supply without deducting the heat of water supply from the heat of the steam generated in the instant lawsuit, and calculated the efficiency thereof to produce more energy than the input fuel, the Defendant’s intellectual property itself, which means that the heat of water supply should be deducted, is contrary to the instant guidelines, and the reason why the heat output is calculated more than the input energy, is calculated on the basis of the net heat of the fuel, and the energy output was calculated on the basis of the total heat output, and thus, it is not a problem.

E) Even if the Defendant may assert that the heat and electricity production efficiency in the instant lawsuit was mistakenly calculated, considering the characteristics of the heat and electricity generation, it is conceptually impossible to distinguish the quantity of energy used only one of the total input energy from the heat and electricity production, and the purport of the instant guidelines that the data value can be used in the heat and electricity production efficiency should be considered to have been in mind in mind of other possible methods, rather than the impossible methods. In other circumstances where there is no other method to distinguish the quantity of energy used only one of the heat and electricity production, it cannot be deemed unreasonable for the Plaintiff to calculate the heat and electricity production efficiency by putting the total input energy into the molecule value, unless there is any reason to deem it unreasonable. Rather, considering the fact that such calculation methodology properly reflects the characteristics of the facilities and production of the instant power plant, and the Plaintiff’s authorized verification institution also determined that the Plaintiff’s methods are appropriate, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s methods are in violation of the instant guidelines established in accordance with the method calculated by the instant report.

(iii) the deviation and abuse of discretionary authority;

The Defendant recognized that the heat production efficiency should be calculated from the various calculation methodology that it considers appropriate to each other, and the Defendant did not separately deal with the issue. Nevertheless, the Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff calculate the heat production efficiency by dividing the heat production efficiency only from the Plaintiff into the width used exclusively for the production of heat among the total input energy, and the total input energy.

If it is impossible to separately measure the amount of energy used only for heat production, the position that the basic value stipulated in the instant guidelines should be used. This is against the principle of proportionality and equality, and thus constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

4) The instant guidelines for correction are only the internal guidelines of administrative agencies, and do not have any external binding force against the public. In other words, the green growth Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the instant guidelines are not to be complied with, and the instant guidelines are not to be complied with. Ultimately, the instant measures are unlawful since they were ordered to modify the contents of the instant guidelines in compliance with the instant guidelines without external binding force.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Confirmation of grounds for disposition;

1) The instant disposition explicitly states that the number of inherent discharge limits to the place of business that the Plaintiff calculated on its own as the reason for the disposition is in excess of the quantity of in-house consumption power (hereinafter referred to as "reason for Disposition 1"), and that there is an error, such as where the computation formula by the data presented is not constituted (hereinafter referred to as "reasons for Disposition 2").

2) First, as to the ground for Disposition 1, the Defendant pointed out that each calculation methodology listed in the attached Tables 3 and 4 of the attached Tables 1 through the final review results before rendering the instant disposition, excluding in-house consumption power from the total output when calculating the electric efficiency, is capable of calculating the electric efficiency by excluding in-house consumption power from the total output. In addition, in full view of the fact that the Defendant did not give any specific assertion and proof as to the ground for Disposition 1 in the instant lawsuit in which the propriety of the specification of this case is at issue, it is reasonable to view that the ground for Disposition 1 is not the specification of this case, but the content of each calculation methodology listed in the attached Tables 3 and 4 of the attached Tables 1, 1.

3) Next, the following circumstances are revealed with regard to the grounds for Disposition 2: (i) the Defendant pointed out that the calculation methodology of the heat and electricity production efficiency in the instant specification was erroneous from the time when the instant specification was submitted to the time when the instant disposition was rendered; and (ii) the Plaintiff presented the heat and electricity production efficiency (e = 1.06, eP = 05) that was calculated by itself through the instant specification, and the Defendant presented them.

Based on the above, it is imminent that the greenhouse gas emission coefficient based on the heat production is not calculated appropriately. Since it is one of the elements constituting a formula for calculating greenhouse gas emission coefficient based on the heat and electricity production efficiency (attached Table 27), the error inherent in the heat and electricity production efficiency calculation methodology is immediately an error affecting the outcome value based on the above calculation formula. ③ The purport of the Defendant’s assertion that the lawsuit in this case was pending is that the error was specifically pointed out in the detailed part of the calculation methodology of heat and electricity production efficiency in the specification of this case. ④ The purport of the ground for the second disposition is not clearly known at the seventh date for pleading of this case. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff mistakenly calculated the heat and electricity production efficiency, and the ground for second disposition is irrelevant to the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff calculated the heat and electricity production efficiency (the Plaintiff’s preparatory brief on July 19, 2019). However, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff’s assertion was inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s preparatory document and its production efficiency at the time of the Plaintiff’s production of this case.

B. Whether procedural defects exist

1) Relevant legal principles

When an administrative agency takes a disposition, it shall, in principle, state the grounds and reasons for the disposition to the parties (Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act). In such cases, the administrative agency shall specifically state the facts causing the disposition and the relevant statutes or municipal ordinances and rules (Article 14-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedures Act): Provided, That in light of the grounds and the purport of the system for establishing the grounds for the disposition that excludes arbitrary decision of the administrative agency and allow the parties to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure, the disposition cannot be deemed unlawful even if it does not specify the grounds and reasons in detail. "Where the grounds were presented," it shall not be deemed unlawful, taking into account the contents of the disposition, relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the overall process up to the disposition, where it can be sufficiently known that the parties were made at the time of the disposition, and thus, it is deemed that there was no hindrance to moving into the administrative remedy procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2016Du4186, Aug. 29, 2017).

2) Determination

In addition to the facts acknowledged earlier, the following circumstances revealed that ① from the time when the specification of this case was submitted to the time when the measure of this case was taken, the defendant pointed out that there were errors in the calculation methodology of the heat and electricity production efficiency in the specification of this case. ② The plaintiff already expressed his own position on several occasions before the disposition of this case was taken, and the plaintiff had already been given sufficient time and opportunity to consider the defendant's arguments, as well as had been involved in the field investigation ("the plaintiff's assertion that there is no reliable material that is necessary for calculating the heat and electricity production efficiency, which is added to the lawsuit of this case" ("the plaintiff's assertion that there is no reliable material that is necessary for calculating the heat and electricity production efficiency), the plaintiff and the defendant had already discussed about the plaintiff's own procedural defect in the disposal of this case (the evidence No. 63, No. 72 pages). ③ The plaintiff's argument that the disposal of this case had already been made within 10 years to 20 years before the disposition of this case was made, and there was no controversy over the plaintiff's procedural defect in the disposal of this case.

C. Whether there are substantive defects

1) Relevant legal principles

If an administrative agency made a highly specialized and technical judgment as prescribed by relevant statutes, it shall be respected unless there are special circumstances, such as a serious error in fact-finding, which is the basis of the determination, or an objectively unreasonable or unjustifiable determination. A disposition as an exercise of discretionary power, based on such a specialized judgment, cannot be deemed unlawful unless it violates the principle of proportionality or considerably lacks validity under the social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du21120, Jan. 28, 2016);

(ii) the existence or absence of the reasons for the measure

A) The Parties’ assertion on the heat and electricity production efficiency

(1) The defendant's assertion

The heat production efficiency (eH) stated in the Guidelines (Attachment 27) of this case must seek a heat (s team) energy ratio compared to the volume of energy produced by the width that has contributed to the production of heat (s team), and the power production efficiency (eP) shall seek the ratio of the amount of energy generated in comparison with the amount of energy contributed to the production of electricity. If the energy ratio contributed to the production of heat (s team) from the total amount of energy and the amount of energy contributed to the production of electricity are not distinguished, the basic value stipulated in the Guidelines of this case must be applied. Since the calculation methodology developed by the Plaintiff does not meet the above criteria, the basic value stipulated in the Guidelines of this case must be applied to the power plant of this case (eH = 0.8; eP = 0.35); and the indirect emission coefficient should also be corrected (CO2: 85,139kGH/T, CH4:0.86GH/T, 200GH/T, 208GJ/GJ283g/GJ).

(2) The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the concept and principle of heat consolidated power plant, it is impossible to distinguish the quantity of energy that contributes to the production of heat from the total quantity of energy and the quantity of energy that contribute to the production of electricity from the total quantity of energy. The method presented by the Defendant is not derived from the basic value stipulated in the instant guidelines, and there is no case related thereto. The Plaintiff introduced a methodology for calculating the heat production efficiency, based on the instant manual, based on the ratio of the heat generated to the total quantity of energy, the power production efficiency is calculated based on the ratio of the electricity generated to the total quantity of energy generated, and the production efficiency is calculated based on the ratio of the electricity generated to the total quantity of the input. This is consistent with the objective meaning of the instant guidelines [Attachment Table 27], the nature of the heat combined power plant, and the characteristics of the instant power plant. Accordingly, the heat and electricity production efficiency (e=1.06, 06, 00.05) and indirect emission coefficient (CO2:46kGH/GHCH, 40GH/GJ416GJ20g/7.).

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, the facts acknowledged earlier, and the evidence Nos. 15, and No. 15, and No. 15, as seen earlier, it is apparent that there is any defect in the specification of this case, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant may issue a corrective order. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

(1) In the case of controlled entities supplying heat, it is necessary to provide a heat emission coefficient according to the supply of heat (Article 95 of the Guidelines) to controlled entities using heat (referred to as "enterprise supplied by purchasing heat teams" from controlled entities supplying heat) (Article 95 of the Guidelines). The reason is that the allocation and trading system of greenhouse gas emission permits was introduced so that controlled entities using heat can easily calculate the quantity of greenhouse gas emitted indirectly by multiplying the quantity of heat supplied outside by the emission coefficient. However, in the case of heat integrated power production facilities, the total energy generated by using fuel is used not only in the production, but also in the production of electricity, so it is unreasonable to calculate the emission coefficient of the total energy produced in comparison with the total amount of energy generated by the heat-only generation facilities, unlike the heat-only power generation facilities, which is no more than that of the Defendant’s production and distribution of greenhouse gas generated by the new energy-generating entity than that of the initial energy-generating entity. It is reasonable to present the production efficiency index of the new energy-generating team than that of the initial energy-generating.

(2) The Plaintiff calculated the total amount of thermal energy (8,124,641GJ) produced from the power plant in the power plant: the net amount of energy (7,647,394.93GJ) input in the power plant; and the net amount of energy generated from the power plant (383,771.58GJ): The net amount of energy generated from the power plant (7,647,394.93GJ) input in the power plant (7,647,94.93GJ). However, such calculation methodology is very different in comparison with the calculation methodology presented by the Defendant (the Plaintiff was deemed to have developed each calculation methodology listed in [Attachment 1] as the basis of the instant report; however, the instant report was prepared for the purpose of examining the background and necessity of regulating heat power generation costs and improvement, which is not consistent with the guidelines of the instant case’s energy production efficiency and calculation, and thus, it seems reasonable to have been consistent with the guidelines of the instant 17th greenhouse gas production efficiency.

(3) According to the detailed methods and criteria for calculating greenhouse gas emissions by the instant guideline [Attachment 16], the thermal power plant using compressed steam tampine is ordinarily 35% of the energy content of ordinary fuels. 0.8 of the basic value of the heat-only production efficiency of heat-generating facilities [it refers to the production efficiency in facilities to enhance the maximum heat productivity even if all the power generated is waste]. The basic value of the electricity production efficiency of 0.35 of the instant guideline is more than the basic value of the thermal power plant (it refers to the production efficiency in facilities to enhance the maximum heat production efficiency of the thermal power plant using compressed steam tampine 16). However, if the thermal power plant is installed at the same time, the Plaintiff appears to have no production efficiency than the above basic value of the power plant (it refers to the production efficiency in facilities to increase the maximum power generation efficiency of the thermal power plant). However, it is far more than 10 out of the total value of the new power plant or the basic value of the new power plant.

(4) According to the Guidelines to present the development basis of the heat (A evidence 21) indirect emission coefficient (A), the energy input is based on the net heat, and the output is based on the heat (including the heat to be incurred due to changes in the temperature without changes in the situation) and the heat above 100% if it is based on the heat above 10% (including the heat to be damaged due to changes in the situation without changes in the temperature). However, it is difficult to obtain 106% of the heat exceeding 100% if it is possible to use the gas fuel, and install the container boiler system which reuses the heat above the heat by reducing the water vapor during the exhaust gas, and it is difficult to obtain 106% of the heat production efficiency exceeding the energy input.

(iii) the deviation and abuse of discretionary authority;

A) Determination on the corrective order itself

The above facts and evidence Nos. 20 and 29 are as follows. ① It is clear that there is a defect in the specification of this case, and thereby, it has been considerably changed to the greenhouse gas emission coefficient according to the heat production (under the specification of this case, the 1TJ emission quantity of the power plant of this case is about 54.5% compared to the majority of the companies using the basic value of the guidelines of this case). The greenhouse gas emission coefficient according to the heat production is likely to have a significant disturbance to the system of allocation and trading of greenhouse gas emission unless the specifications of this case are corrected. ② The specifications of this case are contrary to the guidelines of this case, and there is no reasonable difference between the plaintiff 2 and the 5th generation or sale of the 6th production or sale of the 5th production or sale of the 6th production or sale of the 5th production or sale of the 5th production or sale of the 5th production or sale of the 5th production or sale of the 5th production or sale of the 5th production or sale of the 6th production of the 6th production or sale of the 6th production or sale of the .

B) Determination on the correction method part

(1) The instant disposition is ordered to revise the instant statement in compliance with the instant guidelines, and there is discretion not only to order the correction itself but also to determine the contents of the corrective order, as well as to order the corrective order under the latter part of Article 44(2) of the Green Growth Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du21120, supra)

(2) Further to the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts revealed: ① the defect existing in the specification of this case is a risk of causing serious disturbance to the system of allocating and trading greenhouse gas emission permits; ② the defect existing in the specification of this case can only be resolved by modifying the contents in accordance with the guidelines of this case publicly notified under Article 4(5) of the Green Growth Act and Article 34(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The guidelines of this case constitute reference materials made to specifically explain the guidelines of this case (Evidence No. 25) (Evidence No. 25). The contents of this case are not deemed to be inconsistent with the Act on Green Growth, the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the guidelines of this case. ③ Rather, the basic value of the heat production efficiency of heat production facilities is the general production efficiency in facilities to enhance the maximum productivity, and the basic value of the electricity production efficiency is 0.35,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,00.

(3) Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges are unable to affix a name or seal as a full time leave.

The presiding judge

Judges

Judges Yellow-nam

(heat or heat and electricity) is a business that supplies and sells en bloc to many users in a residential, commercial or industrial complex (a group).

Article 2 subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the Energy Project Act;

2) The assessment grade is classified into four steps. Among them, data, etc. other than the method of directly measuring exhaust gas through automatic chimney measurement devices, etc. are available.

method of calculation is a method of calculating through data, etc. with a higher accuracy of Tier 3 (Article 87 Section 1 of the instant Guidelines).

The above Tier 3 shall apply to discharging facilities of at least 50,00 tons annually, in order to ensure a higher accuracy.

3) = (The value entered into by 4,641,079.29GI on boiler No. 1 machine as a heating POT energy on boiler No. 2 machine 4,641,079.29GI + the heat POT energy on boiler No. 2 machine

value 3,483,561.71GI : (INUT energy on boiler 1) AIN 4,343,433,69G/oiler 2

PUT Energy 3,303,961.24GJ (the value less than two decimal places) (the value less than two decimal places)

4) - (The value entered into with the foregoing OUT PT energy from boiler 1 units 226,266.04GJ + the above OUT PUT energy from boiler 2 units.

The value stated 157,505.54G : (The value stated in INUT Energy for Boiler 1,343,433.69GJ + AIN for Boiler 2

The value stated in PUT Energy 3,303,961.24GJ (the value below two decimal places) (the value below two decimal places)

5) Not more than 5) The term 's heat supplied outside the organizational boundary' for the convenience of understanding.

6) As examined earlier, the ground for Disposition No. 1 is not directly related to the specification of the instant case, and thus, the grounds for Disposition No. 2 are not directly related to the specification of the instant case.

1.2.3 1.3 1.

7) Article 52 of the Energy Use Rationalization Act (amended by Act No. 3181, Jun. 29, 1980) (amended by Act No. 3181, Jun. 29, 1980)

was established.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.