2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Three minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and the remainder are assessed against the defendant.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 3-4, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-2, and there are no other objections.

A. The Plaintiff was established on August 11, 1978; the purpose of the Plaintiff is to make a joint metal brewing business; the recycling business of non-ferrous metal scraping products; and on September 11, 1996, the employee of the Central Mobile Control Group of the Ministry of Environment conducted an inspection under Article 49 of the Water Quality Conservation Act (hereinafter the Act) on wastewater discharge and preventive facilities installed in the Plaintiff Company’s factory; and then requested the Han River Environment Management Office to conduct an inspection on the wastewater discharge facilities and preventive facilities installed in the Plaintiff Company’s factory.

B. On October 8, 1996, the Defendant issued an improvement order to supplement the wastewater discharge and preventive facilities on October 22, 1996 under Article 16 of the Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act (hereinafter the Rule) on October 14, 1996, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant issued an improvement order to the Plaintiff on October 14, 1999: (b) the period for submission of the improvement plan under Article 16 of the Act, and Article 66 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, on October 14, 1999; (c) the Plaintiff reported the performance of improvement to the Defendant on October 14, 200; and (d) the Defendant’s employee confirmed the improvement on October 16, 190.

C. However, on October 18 of the same year, the defendant collected the original sample from September 19 of the same year to October 14 of the same year, and recognized that the 11th day of the day of service, such as Sundays, etc., was not actually discharged from wastewater, and issued a disposition to impose 100,801,750 won of the water pollutants discharge dues (hereinafter the disposition in this case) as shown in the attached Form 1, pursuant to Article 19 of the Act and Articles 11 and 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act by treating the remaining 15 days of the discharge period as the remaining 15 days of the discharge period.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff should bear only the water pollutants discharge charges (hereinafter referred to as "discharge charges") for the period from September 19 to September 23, 1996 by improving the wastewater discharge facilities and prevention facilities of the plaintiff's factory on September 24, 1996, since only 4 days of discharging water pollutants excluding Sundays during the period from September 19 to September 23, 1996, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not discharge water pollutants by improving the facilities after September 24 of the same year, it is impossible to confirm the improvement by the public officials belonging to the defendant, or to believe that the water pollutants were not discharged by the inspection institution prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, rather than by the inspection institution prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment. The period during which the plaintiff discharges water pollutants should be the period from September 19, 196 to October 14 of the same year.

(b) Related statutes;

The emission dues as prescribed in Article 10 (1) of the Decree, which are entrusted with the standards for calculation of emission dues such as kinds, emission periods, and emission quantities of pollutants under Article 19 (1) of the Act, shall be the sum of basic dues imposed for each place of business as shown in the annexed Table 1 and disposal dues imposed for the disposal of pollutants in excess of the permissible emission standards, in order to prevent water environmental damage and violations of the permissible emission standards. The basic dues for Class 5 places of business are calculated as 50,000 won. The disposal dues as prescribed in paragraph (2) of this Article are calculated as 50,000 won. The disposal dues as prescribed in paragraph (1) of this Article are calculated according to the calculation method of "the imposition rate for pollutants 1km, the imposition coefficient for pollutants x the excess of the permissible emission standards by region x the imposition coefficient for pollutants x the imposition coefficient by year x the imposition coefficient by the number of pollutants exceeding the permissible emission standards as prescribed in Article 10 (3) of the Decree, but the emission quantity and dues as prescribed in Article 111 through 2 of the Act for the date of discharge.

In addition, Article 14 (1) of the Decree provides that the Minister of Environment shall repeatedly calculate and adjust the dues in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, but when there is a difference between the already paid and the adjusted amount, the difference shall be again imposed or refunded. In addition, Article 11 (1) of the Decree provides that the improvement or the implementation of the order is not completed until the expiration date of the improvement or the scheduled completion date of the implementation of the order under subparagraph 1 of Article 11 (1) or the improvement or implementation of the order is completed within the period, and the discharge

On the other hand, Article 18 (1) of the Decree provides that when a business operator subject to an order of improvement under Article 16 of the Act complies with such order, he shall report it to the Minister of Environment without delay under conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, and the Minister of Environment shall, when he receives a report under the above paragraph (1), have the relevant public officials confirm the status of implementation of the order or the status of completion of improvement, and when it is deemed necessary to conduct an inspection of pollution level of wastewater, he/she

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 6-1 through 6, evidence No. 7-1 through 4, evidence No. 8-3, and evidence No. 8-5, and evidence No. 2-2 of evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4, and evidence No. 5 of evidence No. 6, and evidence No. 5 of evidence No. 3, and evidence No.

(1) The plaintiff entered into a water quality measurement agency contract with non-party 1, 1996, a non-party 1, 3 years after September 1, 1996, and conducts water quality inspection through a self-measurement of pollutants discharged from the plaintiff factory twice a month. The above investigation agency is a company registered measuring agency business pursuant to Article 44 of the Act and Article 51 of the Enforcement Rule.

(2) On September 9 of the same year, the Plaintiff’s request for measurement of the Plaintiff’s plant’s water quality to the above investigation agency, which was normal below the permissible emission level. On September 19, 19 of the same year, the date of collecting the sample of the instant case, the quantitative pumps, which are the secondary secondary chemical medicine supply pumps, are not operated normally by the flow of the instant material, thereby exceeding the permissible emission level as seen above.

(3) Therefore, on September 20 of the same year, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the representative of the non-party 4 administrative agency, and newly installed a fixed pumps pipe for the secondary chemical medicine supply pumps until September 23 of the same year, which is the secondary chemical medicine supply pumps, and the discharge tank, to dump the fixed pumps pipe that can be dumped from the water tank.

(4) As a result of the Plaintiff’s inspection of water quality after collecting samples on September 24 of the same year, it was found that chroman, copper, smoke, etc., both of which are below the permissible emission level.

(5) The Plaintiff did not submit a completion report even after repairing and improving the wastewater discharge facilities and prevention facilities as above. The Plaintiff submitted a completion report along with a performance plan on October 14 of the same year, which was served with the Defendant’s performance order on October 12 of the same year.

(6) On October 16 of the same year, the Defendant’s employees confirmed the above improvement and deemed that water pollutants were discharged by October 14 of the same year, which submitted a completion report, and accordingly, imposed the instant disposition.

D. Determination

According to the above facts, although the plaintiff submitted a report on the performance of the facility improvement order at latest, the plaintiff actually completed the improvement of the facility on September 23, 1996, and thereafter did not discharge pollutants.

However, in light of the purpose of the Act and the reasons for imposing emission charges, it is reasonable to consider the emission charges as the emission period until the date of the actual completion of improvement work in accordance with the improvement order and to calculate the emission charges as the emission charges, since it is improper to consider the purpose of the Act and the reasons for imposing the improvement charges, if the business operator has completed improvement work in advance before receiving the improvement order, it is obligated to report it to the Minister of Environment without delay pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Decree. However, if the business operator has completed improvement work in advance in accordance with the improvement order, he/she did not have any legal grounds to promptly report the improvement to the Minister of Environment before receiving the improvement order, and if the business operator has completed the improvement work in advance before receiving the improvement order, he/she should report the completion of the improvement to the Minister of Environment, and if the business operator has imposed the emission charges as the emission charges to the date of the non-discharge of pollutants exceeding the permissible emission levels, it is reasonable to consider the improvement order as the emission charges as the emission charges as the emission charges as the result of the measurement agent's.

3. Amount of effluent charges:

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that only 4 days from September 19, 196 to October 14 of the same year during the period from September 19, 196 to September 23 of the same year, which was recognized in the disposition of this case, discharged water pollutants. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that only 4 days from September 19 of the same year during the period from September 19 of the same year to September 23 of the same year, which was completed the improvement work, was discharged (in September 2, 199, the plaintiff factory was not operated as Sundays) and when calculating discharge dues by recognizing only that period as the discharge period of water pollutants,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the disposition of this case exceeding 27,247,134 won is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

October 10, 1997

Judges Lee Young-gu

Judges Park Young-young

A person shall be appointed.