대기배출시설 변경수리 취소 및 변경시설 원상복구명령 취소
1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.
2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.
Details of the disposition
The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case is consistent with the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The court's explanation of this part of the relevant statutes is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The reasons why the court shall explain this part of the decision of the court of first instance as to the application of the EAP emission coefficient.
2.(c)
1) Inasmuch as the part of “determination as to the existence of the grounds for disposition” is the same as the part of the “determination as to the existence of the grounds for disposition,” it shall be quoted pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. In full view of the circumstances examining the illegality of the disposition of accepting the report of this case concerning the revocation of the report of this case among the dispositions of this case, the emission facilities of this case fall under Class 1 in the case of calculating the final size by applying the EAP emission coefficient to the “discharge facilities of this case whose production capacity has been increased” as to the “discharge facilities of this case,” and in the case of calculating the final size by applying the EAP emission coefficient, the location where the discharge facilities of this case are located are located
The Act, which was in force as of December 13, 2012, which was the date of acceptance of the instant report, is all included in the Enforcement Decree. Since planned control areas under Article 36, the Defendant asserts that the location of the instant discharge facilities is a production management area from the preparatory document as of December 15, 2015, the Defendant is asserting that the location of the instant discharge facilities is a production management area. However, according to the written statement in subparagraph 6-1.