The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The plaintiffs.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiffs, Article 41(1)2(a) of the former Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 11979, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter “Water Quality and Ecosystem Conservation Act”) provides that the business operator who discharges water pollutants in excess of the permissible discharge levels shall impose and collect excess discharge dues on and from the business operator who discharges water pollutants in order to prevent or reduce water pollution and damage to aquatic ecosystems caused by water pollutants, and that matters necessary for the methods and criteria for calculating

Articles 45(1) and 49(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25045, Dec. 30, 2013); [Attachment Table 16] subparagraph 1(a) and (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act upon delegation (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25045, Dec. 30, 201

According to the above, the "number of violations" means the number of violations committed in cases of orders for improvement, suspension of operation, revocation of permission, suspension of use, or orders for closure (hereinafter "order for improvement, etc.") by discharging water pollutants subject to the imposition of excess discharge dues in excess of the permissible emission levels for each place of business, but it means the number of violations committed in the last two years on the basis of the date of

On the other hand, there are two or more violations such as one improvement order, but the date of violation is the most recent violation.

If there are the system and contents of the relevant regulations and the emission power of pollutants, etc., the frequency of violations to apply the imposition rate of the charges.