(b) Whether business operators may be ordered to jointly and severally pay emission charges for the total quantity of pollutants in excess of the standards discharged from joint prevention facilities under the former Environmental Conservation Act;

B. According to Article 19-2(1) of the same Act, discharge dues should be imposed within the limit of the amount equivalent to the cost of treating pollutants discharged by a business operator. Thus, in cases where discharge dues are imposed due to the discharge of excess pollutants from joint prevention facilities, administrative agencies shall reasonably calculate the quantity of raw materials used for each business place, the quantity of products, the process, etc., of pollutants actually discharged by each business operator, and impose only the amount equivalent to the cost of treating pollutants discharged by each business operator, and shall not be ordered to jointly pay the amount equivalent to the cost of treating pollutants discharged by another

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. In full view of the relevant provisions under the main sentence of Article 15-2(1) and Article 15-3(1) of the former Environmental Conservation Act (amended by the Framework Act on Environmental Policy as of February 1, 191; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), Article 22(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Articles 23(2) and 19-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, in a case where enterprisers install joint prevention facilities for the joint disposal of pollutants, etc. discharged from discharge facilities and entrust the operation thereof to the partnership, the association, which is an operating organization, is in the position of acting as an agent for each business operator. Thus, in a case where the business operator has been engaged in the operation of pollutants in excess of the permissible discharge levels and has been ordered to pay a considerable amount of discharge dues to each business operator, it shall not be imposed on each business operator, which is an operating organization of joint prevention facilities.

In addition, in accordance with Article 19-2 (1) of the Act, discharge dues should be imposed within the limit of the amount equivalent to the cost of treating pollutants discharged by business operators. Thus, in cases where discharge dues are imposed due to the discharge of excess pollutants from joint prevention facilities, administrative agencies should reasonably calculate the quantity of pollutants, etc. actually discharged by each business operator through the quantity of raw materials used for each business place, the quantity of products, the process, etc., and then impose only the amount equivalent to the cost of treating pollutants discharged by each business operator, and it cannot be ordered that other business operators jointly pay the amount equivalent to

In the above purport, even if pollutants exceeding the permissible discharge standards were discharged through a wastewater treatment plant at the original outlet of the Plaintiff Union, the discharge dues should be imposed on the Plaintiff Union members, who installed and operated the discharge facilities, and it should not be imposed on the Plaintiff Union. In addition, when the court below imposes the discharge dues on the business operators who discharged pollutants exceeding the permissible discharge standards through the joint prevention facilities, the actual discharge amount of each business operator according to the raw material consumption product produced by each business operator who installed and operated the joint prevention facilities, and the total amount of discharge dues should be borne in installments according to the amount of discharge. The Defendant did not investigate the quantity of pollutants exceeding the permissible discharge standards discharged by each business establishment, and did not jointly bear the total amount of discharge dues calculated according to the permissible excess quantity discharged from the Plaintiff Union's wastewater treatment plant, and did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, and therefore, the argument is without merit.

2. The administrative disposition imposing obligations on the people, such as the imposition of discharge dues, should be conducted under the legal basis. Thus, it is not possible to impose discharge dues on the basis of the "Rules on the Operation of Joint Preventive Facilities" such as theory that only sets the internal relations between the operators who installed the Joint Preventive Facilities. The discussion is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)