경고처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The following facts are not in dispute between the parties or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 to 4:
The plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of food manufacturing and selling business, food export business, etc.
At the time of the Plaintiff’s report on wastewater discharge facilities, it is reported to Class IV places of business prescribed in the former Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26704, Apr. 28, 2016) and attached Table 13. The amount of wastewater discharged a day is at least 50 cubic meters and less than 200 cubic meters
B. On May 30, 2016, the Joint Inspection Group of Boan-si and Seocheon-gun confirmed the fact that the amount of wastewater discharged from the site of the operation of the wastewater discharge facilities and water pollution prevention facilities, prepared by the Plaintiff, was stated in the column of 201.2 cubic metres on January 19, 2016, and on January 23, 2016, the fact that the amount of wastewater discharged from the site of the operation of the wastewater discharge facilities and water pollution prevention facilities was stated in the cubic metres of 202.5 metres on January 23, 2016, and notified the Defendant thereof on February 23, 2016.
C. Accordingly, on June 30, 2016, the Defendant issued a warning disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 33(3) of the former Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 13530, Dec. 1, 2015; hereinafter “Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act”) on the ground that the Defendant did not report the type of business at a Class 4 place of business to a Class 3 place of business (referring to a place of business from which the wastewater discharged a day is at least 200 cubic meters, but less than 700 cubic meters).
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not discharge wastewater in excess of 200 cubic meters of daily wastewater discharge quantity. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not directly calculate the Plaintiff’s wastewater discharge quantity per day in accordance with the formula set forth in attached Table 13 non- high-water 2., but only write down the date of operation based on the integrating flow meter measurement.