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

A. On April 8, 1993, two mountain Construction Co., Ltd. installed a heat co-electric power plant (hereinafter “instant electric power plant”) on the ground of the Hacheon-si New-si, Seocheon-si, Jungcheon-si, Seoul, for the purpose of supplying heat and electricity to nearby factories, and supplied a s team and electricity to nearby factories, upon obtaining a collective energy business license from the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy on April 19, 1993, and on February 23, 2004, reported the installation of air emission facilities (fuel: Ba-C oil) to the Defendant.

B. On June 3, 2004, 2004, 2004. After taking over all the power plants facilities and sites of this case from 2004, 2008, 2008. On June 24, 2008, 2008, 2008. On February 24, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2000.

C. On August 24, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired all of the facilities and businesses of the instant power plant from the Energy Conduct Corporation, and completed the procedure of modification to each of the above permits to the Defendant around that time.

D. On November 2, 2010, the Plaintiff changed fuel used at the instant power plant from the Bachip to the RPF (waste plastic fuel, Refuse Placotic Fuel), RD (waste solid fuel, Refuse D) and WCF (waste solid fuel, waste wood solid fuel, and Dok Fuel), and accordingly, changed the fuel from the instant power plant to the exclusive facility, and applied for permission to change the installation of a place of business under the total volume control of air pollutants and for permission to install air discharge facilities (hereinafter “instant application”). The Plaintiff changed the fuel from the Do chip to the Do chip to the Do chip, and accordingly, changed the fuel from the Do chip to the Do chip to the Do chip, and applied for permission to change the installation of air discharge facilities (hereinafter “instant facility”).

E. On November 24, 2010, the Defendant rejected the instant disposition on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The votes contained in the main text - The power plant of this case is designated as an atmosphere control zone in which air pollution is deemed serious in the metropolitan area. The RPF (waste solid fuel), RDF (waste solid fuel in domestic wastes), WCF (waste solid fuel in solid wood) and other specified air pollutants and pollutants, such as salt emitting hydrogen, tea, and lead, are likely to cause environmental damage, and the air pollution is likely to be deepened. The opinion of non-permission was submitted from the incheon City having jurisdiction over the relevant area. - The environmental pollutant generated from the facility of this case may adversely affect the health and property of neighboring residents and the growth of animals and plants within 300 meters around the water source (168,35 persons in water supply population), and the civil petition is constantly causing objection to the installation and opposition of the residents. Accordingly, the application of this case shall be rejected under Article 23(6) of the Clean Air Conservation Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

F. During the instant lawsuit, the Defendant added the grounds for the instant disposition that the installation of the instant facility that discharges specific substances harmful to water quality cannot be permitted pursuant to Article 22(2) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy and Article 2010-18 of the Public Notice of the Ministry of Environment (Designation of Special Measure Areas for the Conservation of Water Quality of the Supply and Agency Hoho Water Water Sources and Special Comprehensive Measures) as the location of the instant power plant belongs to a special measure area for the

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

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

1) As to the non-performance of the requirement for restriction on license

The power plant of this case is not a facility that discharges specific air pollutants not less than 10 tons per annum, and since the resident population located within 1 km per annum at the time of the disposition of this case does not reach 20,000, it does not meet the requirements for restriction on permission under Article 23(6) of the Clean Air Conservation Act and Article 12 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and there are opposing opinions in the echeon City and the opposite opinions in the neighboring residents cannot be the grounds for

2) As to the deviation and abuse of discretionary power

Article 23(6) of the Clean Air Conservation Act and Article 12 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act do not stipulate the increase of population predicted in the future as a condition for restriction on permission, and it is not always clear that the increase of resident population in the near future would always increase rapidly in the near future because the urban development plan was established. The instant facility is in accordance with the national policy called low carbon, green growth, which contributes to environmental conservation and improvement in the long term and contributes to the enhancement of national competitiveness. In light of the fact that the instant facility contributes to the enhancement of national competitiveness and contributing to the reduction of use of fossil fuels and the reduction of use of new and renewable energy.

3) As to the additional reason for disposition

The Defendant’s ground for disposition added to the argument of the instant case is not recognized as identical to the factual basis of the original disposition of the instant case, and thus, cannot be permitted.

Even if the above disposition grounds are recognized, in such a case, the defendant did not comply with the above provision even though he requested the plaintiff to supplement the specific substances harmful to water quality in accordance with Article 17(5) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

In addition, even if the above disposition reason is recognized, the plaintiff already obtained permission for the installation of wastewater discharge facilities before the Ministry of Environment's notification No. 2010-18, the defendant did not revoke or change the permission for the installation of the existing wastewater discharge facilities or recommend the replacement of the existing wastewater discharge facilities in compliance with the above notification criteria, and the disposition of this case was excluded from and abused discretion in that it did not take such measures although it could minimize the plaintiff's damage by making such change or replacement as the father or the conditions of permission, instead of non-permission, and the plaintiff trusted that the installation of the facility of this case is possible based on the existing wastewater discharge facilities and did not take any measures therefor. Therefore, the disposition of this case violates the principle of trust protection.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff filed the instant application with the annual emission of nitrogen oxides to 87.21 tons, annual emission of sulfur oxides to 19.60 tons, annual emission of sulfur oxides to 6.41 tons, annual emission of dust to 6.41 tons, and the annual emission of hydrogen which is a specified hazardous air pollutant to 18.47 tons.

2) At the time of the instant disposition, 11,451 resident population located within 1km from the location of the instant power plant at the time of the instant disposition.

3) At the time of the instant disposition, the district unit planning was already established in 350,000 square meters in the area of 12,184 persons expected to board and alight in 201 in the area of the additional railway station which was newly established in accordance with the construction project of the Mancheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si (number 2 omitted) located within a distance of 800 meters from the instant power plant. In addition, according to the basic urban planning of 2020, the estimated accommodation population in the area of the additional railway station reaches 22,400 persons. In addition, the district unit planning was established in the area of 1,100,000 square meters in the area of 1.4 km-si, Seocheon-si (number 3 omitted) located from the instant power plant of this case.

4) Meanwhile, on February 2, 2010, before the instant application, the Plaintiff expressed that the Plaintiff would not promote the use of solid fuels if the neighboring residents oppose the installation of the instant facilities, but would review and promote the feasibility of solid fuels as chips already permitted at the time.

5) With respect to the instant application, the echeon City Mayor submitted to the Defendant an opinion on non-permission in full view of the following facts: (a) the air pollution in Echeon City is higher than that in neighboring Si/Gun; (b) the use of solid fuels is likely to lower the atmosphere if it is used; (c) the water supply business office in Echeon-si is located within 300 meters from the power plant of this case; (d) may adversely affect the stable water supply of Echeon-si citizens (water supply population 168,355); and (e) the Plaintiff filed the instant application, unlike the Plaintiff expressed at the Kancheon-gu Council on February 2, 2010, thereby causing the collective

6) The Ministry of Environment conducted an on-site investigation of facilities using solid fuels in two places immediately before the instant disposition, and conducted a review of the need for restrictions on the use of specified air pollutants within the air pollution sensitive area, including RPF (waste plastic solid fuel), hydrogen, cadmium, and diosa, which may adversely affect the air quality in urban areas, and that such restrictions are necessary until the quality of exclusive incineration roads is secured.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(d) Markets:

1) Whether an administrative act is a binding act or discretionary act cannot be uniformly defined, and it shall be individually determined in accordance with the form, system, or language of the provision that forms the basis for the pertinent disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12302 delivered on December 12, 1995).

As seen earlier, since the facility of this case is a facility that discharges hydrogens, which are specified hazardous air pollutants, it is required to obtain permission under Article 23(1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act and Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. According to Article 23 of the same Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, any person who intends to install specified hazardous air pollutants emission facilities is required to obtain permission from the permission-granting authority, but does not have to do so in any case, and the permission-granting authority is limited to restrict installation in certain cases. Thus, the determination of whether to grant permission should, in principle, belong to the discretion of administrative

In addition, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff has already obtained permission for the installation of a place of business under the total air pollutants control on January 2, 2008, so to change the permitted facilities to the instant facilities, it is required to obtain permission under Article 14(1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Air Quality in the Seoul Metropolitan Area. The above provision does not necessarily provide that where a person who has obtained permission for the installation of pollutants subject to the total quantity control (sulfur oxides, sulfur oxide and dust) emission facilities in an atmosphere control zone intends to alter the permitted matters, he/she is required to obtain permission from the permission-granting authority, but does not provide for any case as to what permission should be granted, and even where such permission is restricted by Article 15 of the same Act, he/she shall also be deemed as discretionary action by an administrative

On the other hand, in the judicial review of discretionary acts, the court shall examine only whether the act in question deviates from or abused the discretionary power without drawing an independent conclusion, considering the room for determining the public interest based on the discretion of the administrative agency. The examination of whether the act in question deviates from or abused the discretionary power is subject to the determination of facts, violation of the principle of proportionality and equality, and violation of the purpose and motive of the act in question (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du17593, Feb. 9, 2001, etc.).

2) As to the assertion of non-requirements for restriction on permission

According to Article 23(6) of the Clean Air Conservation Act and Article 12 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the installation of emission facilities may be restricted in cases where one of the specified hazardous substances is to be emitted at least 10 tons per annum or at least 25 tons of two specified hazardous substances per annum in an area where at least 20,000 residents live within 1km from the site where the installation of the emission facilities is installed. As seen earlier, the number of specified hazardous substances discharged from the facilities of this case exceeds 10 tons per annum, 18.47 tons per annum, but the number of specified hazardous substances discharged from the facilities of this case does not exceed 10 tons per annum. However, the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for restriction on permission under the above provisions because the resident population located within 1 km per annum at the time of the application of this case does not fall short of 20,000 tons per annum (the Plaintiff does not accept the restriction on the annual emission of hydrogen at the time of the application of this case.

However, it is not necessarily required for an administrative agency to permit the installation of specified hazardous air pollutants as a discretionary act, and it can be denied by discretionary determination taking into account the purpose of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the need for public interest. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is rejected.

3) As to the assertion of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

As seen earlier, since the Class I district unit planning, etc. has already been established in the vicinity of the instant power plant, it is anticipated that the permanent population within 1 km in the near future would be not less than 20,000, and the Plaintiff’s installation of the instant facilities would require a certain period of time until normal operation, and the installation of the instant facilities will continue to be emitted in the instant facilities since there is no special period of time. In light of the purpose of the Special Act on the Conservation of Clean Air Conservation and the Improvement of Air Quality in the Seoul Metropolitan Area, for protecting the health of neighboring residents and creating a pleasant living environment, it is necessary to protect the health and living environment of the permanent population at the time of permission as well as the health and living environment of the permanent population that will be continuously affected until normal operation of the instant facilities, and there is no opinion that the use of the instant facilities would be a need to be restricted because it would adversely affect the air quality in the event of the use of high fuels in the instant markets as well as the Ministry of Environment. Considering that the installation of water supply facilities and the installation of the instant fuel emission facilities is not necessary to protect the existing emission of fuel.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

4) As seen above, the circumstances alone are sufficient to recognize the legality of the instant disposition. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the addition of the grounds for disposition is not separately determined.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judge Cho Man-tae (Presiding Judge)