2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, and facts acknowledged in Gap evidence 1 and 3 together with the whole purport of the pleading are as follows:

A. The Plaintiff is a company operating a manufacturing and processing factory of leather products in the Gyeonggi-do Head Office. On October 9, 1991, the Defendant public officials belonging to the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “treatment facilities”) collected discharged water from the outlet of the Plaintiff’s plant wastewater treatment facilities (hereinafter “treatment facilities”) and requested the National Institute of Environmental Research to test it.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff improved disposal facilities in accordance with the Defendant’s improvement order on November 15, 1991 and reported the completion of improvement to the Defendant on December 19 of the same year. However, the water collected from the final discharge outlet of the Plaintiff’s factory on January 6, 1992, the Defendant thereafter discharged pollutants exceeding the permissible emission levels.

C. Accordingly, on July 29, 1992, the defendant issued a disposition to the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff discharged pollutants exceeding the permissible emission levels during the period from October 9, 191 to February 20, 1992 (the Act was amended by Act No. 4536, Dec. 8, 1992; hereinafter the same shall apply) Article 19 of the Water Quality Conservation Act and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13679, Jun. 30, 192; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 9 to 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13679, Jun. 30, 199; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the purport of the claim that impose emission dues of KRW 227,983,850 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case").

2. Whether the dispositions in this case are appropriate; and

A. First of all, from October 191, the Plaintiff’s biological treatment facilities installed in the Plaintiff’s factory from around October 1991, instead of the previous chemical treatment facilities, continuously operate the save to supply the gas tank air, thereby purifying contaminants by making the activities of microbes in the gas tank saves to catch harmful substances. On October 8, 191, the Plaintiff asserted that on the 9th day of the same month, the Plaintiff’s public officials, who were installed in the above water tank, were unable to operate the wastewater treatment facilities because the two saves installed in the above water tank were broken out, and were unable to operate the wastewater treatment facilities. The Plaintiff’s public officials collected samples from the second saves of the Plaintiff’s factory treatment facilities before the removal of samples, and, on the basis of the result of the examination, imposed the instant imposition of wastewater including chro (C) beyond the permissible discharge level, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s public officials were found to have installed the above water and disposed of it within the permissible discharge level within five hours after the discharge level.

Therefore, in light of the provisions of laws and regulations, Article 8 (1) of the Act provides that the permissible discharge standards for pollutants emitted from wastewater discharge facilities (hereinafter referred to as "discharge facilities") shall be determined by Ordinance of the Prime Minister after hearing the opinion of the head of the central administrative agency concerned, and Article 10 (1) of the Act provides that any person who intends to install discharge facilities shall obtain permission from the Minister of Environment under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 11 (1) of the Act provides that when any person who has obtained permission for the installation or alteration of discharge facilities installs or alters the discharge facilities, he shall install water pollution prevention facilities (hereinafter referred to as "preventive facilities") to ensure that pollutants emitted from the discharge facilities do not meet the permissible discharge standards under Article 8 of the Act, and Article 19 (1) of the Act provides that the Minister of Environment shall order the business operator who discharges pollutants in excess of the permissible discharge standards to pay the kinds of pollutants, the discharge period, etc. as emission standards under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

In full view of the whole purport of oral argument as to this case, the public official belonging to the defendant's office collected 2 litres from the final outlet at the disposal facility installed and operated in the above factory under the presence of the plaintiff's representative director in order to investigate whether pollutants discharged from the above factory exceed the permissible emission levels, and requested the National Institute of Environmental Research to analyze the sample, 1,440 PPM exceeding 100 PPM, COD (chemical oxygen demand quantity), which is 100 PPM exceeding the permissible level, 561.1 PPM exceeding 100 PPM, SS (Additional oxygen material) and 100 PPM exceeding the above 10 PPM beyond the permissible level, 100 PPM beyond the above 10 PPM, 274 PPM exceeding the permissible level, and 200 PPM beyond the above 5 PPM's testimony at the National Institute of Environmental Research, and the testimony that the above 4 PP2PM was not found to be different from the evidence of the plaintiff's.

B. The Plaintiff also asserts that the instant disposition should be revoked for the following reasons.

(1) A public official belonging to the Plaintiff, who collects water as above, immediately repaired the mar installed in the breadth and operated a disposal facility normally within five hours after the passage of water, and as a result of such normal operation, the Plaintiff voluntarily extracted from the Plaintiff on October 10, 1991, and applied for measurement to a mar investigation agency, which was below the permissible emission level, but he was below the permissible emission level. In addition, the result of the analysis of samples collected from the Plaintiff’s plant on November 9, 191, Gyeonggi-do Northwest Branch Office and Si/Gun/Gu joint inspection conducted on November 9, 191, all of the materials, including mercury, were found to be below the permissible emission level. Thus, at least, the mar who supplied the margic air with the mar during the instant disposition, was found to have been in operation during the period of the Plaintiff’s unlawful imposition period from 10th day to 10th day of the instant disposition ( October 9, 1991) but was found to have not been in operation within the permissible emission level.

(2) In addition, in light of the provisions of Article 11(1) of the Decree, in a case where pollutants exceeding the permissible emission levels have been discharged due to the failure of normal operation of emission facilities, the charges should be calculated by considering the emission period from the date of the commencement of the emission to the date of the suspension of abnormal operation. In the case of the plaintiff, the disposal facilities are discontinued at the time of the joint intake and the immediate operation has started as soon as the operation has been commenced, and therefore, the charges should be calculated by applying the above provisions, even though the defendant's disposition of this case, which did not follow the above methods, should be deemed as the emission period exceeding the permissible emission level per day, and the charges should be calculated by recognizing only the same day as the emission period exceeding the permissible emission level.

C. Therefore, in examining the provisions of the law on the method of calculating charges, the following are examined.

Article 9 of the Decree provides that the kinds of pollutants subject to the imposition of discharge dues (hereinafter referred to as “discharge dues”) under Article 19 (1) of the Act include pollutants subject to the imposition of discharge dues under subparagraphs 1 through 15 in the following cases. Article 10 (1) of the Decree provides that the discharge dues under Article 19 of the Decree shall be the amount calculated by dividing them into the disposal charges imposed on the scale of business places in the attached Table 1 and the amount equivalent to the disposal charges for pollutants discharged in excess of the permissible discharge standards in order to prevent damage to the water environment and violation of the permissible discharge standards. Article 10 (3) of the Decree provides that the disposal charges under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be the amount calculated by adding them to the disposal charges imposed on the quantity of business places in the attached Table 1. In addition, the disposal charges under paragraph (3) of the same Article provide that the imposition charges per kilogram of pollutants in excess of the permissible discharge standards per kilogram shall be calculated by the calculation method of the number of pollutants per kilogram X-year imposition coefficient, and the imposition coefficient per kilogram per kilogram.

In addition, Article 11(1) of the Decree provides that the quantity of pollutants emitted exceeding the permissible emission levels as set forth in Article 10(3) shall be the quantity of pollutants emitted by operating in excess of the permissible emission levels during the following emission periods: Provided, That the daily amount of pollutants exceeding the permissible emission levels shall be calculated by multiplying the daily amount of pollutants emitted exceeding the permissible emission levels by the number of days of the emission period. In addition, Article 11(1) of the Decree provides that the date on which the pollutants commenced to discharge (where the date of commencement of discharge is unknown, the date on which the pollutants commenced for inspection as to whether the permissible emission levels exceed the permissible emission standards) as prescribed in Articles 16 through 18 and

D. Furthermore, the health department and the public official belonging to the defendant collected two liters of discharge water from the final outlet of the disposal facility installed and operated at the plaintiff's factory on October 9, 191, and requested the National Institute of Environmental Research to analyze the sample, as seen earlier, it is found that the sample exceeded the permissible emission level. Meanwhile, the following facts are acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the argument in each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 3 through 7, and there is no reflective evidence except the evidence believed above.

(1) The wastewater containing mercury shall be treated by adding the sulfur to the reaction to the 3 chromate, which is toxicly toxic, and then adding the chrosium to this to the chrosium and then treating it as the aquatic cargo again by spiuming it into the sediment. Thus, it is impossible to supply the grospher to the microbe in the treatment facilities so that it can not be allowed to treat the chrospher, and it is not possible to treat the wastewater containing the chrosphere by removing the grosphers.

(2) On November 15, 1991, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to improve the facilities under Article 16 of the Act. According to the facility improvement plan submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on the 25th of the same month, the Defendant submitted a report to the Defendant that the Plaintiff completed the repair of the de facto water in accordance with the above improvement plan on December 12, 1992, on the ground that the de facto water is found to have deteriorated the de facto efficiency and treatment efficiency because the de facto water in the treatment facilities failed to remove the de facto water, and it was merely stated that the de facto water would be repaired, and there was no indication as to the improvement of the treatment method of wastewater containing mercury, and as alleged by the Plaintiff, there was no indication as to the effect that the de facto water would have been repaired or would be repaired.

(3) On the other hand, in the case of the examination of water pollution conducted on November 9, 191, by the Gyeonggi-do North Korea Branch and Si/Gun/Dong Branch, all pollutants were found to be below the permissible emission levels as a result of the analysis of samples collected from the plaintiff's factory. Thus, in calculating the amount of excess charges to the plaintiff, the defendant calculated the amount of excess charges necessary for calculating charges against the plaintiff, under Article 11 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, from October 9, 191 to December 12, 1991, which is the date of the completion of the improvement order under Article 16 of the Act, the date of the implementation of the order of improvement order under Article 16 of the Act; the period from the date of notification to the government branch office of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office to the date of referral to the defendant (from October 26, 1991 to November 14, 199); the remaining amount of excess charges from the date of the inspection of water pollution by the plaintiff's 10.

(4) In addition, on January 6, 192, in order to verify the proper operation of disposal facilities according to the Plaintiff’s report on the completion of improvement, the Defendant collected 2 liters from the final outlet to the Plaintiff’s factory, and requested the Gyeonggi-do Health and Environment Research Institute to analyze the sample. In addition, it is found that BOD exceeded 100 PPM, which is the permissible level, 338.8 PPM, exceeded 278.3 PPM, COD exceeding 100 PPM, the permissible level of COD, and SS is found to include 14 PPM exceeding 100 PPM, which is the permissible level of 100 PPM, and thus, the Defendant again ordered the Plaintiff to improve the facilities on the 21st of the same month. On February 20 of the same year, the Plaintiff completed the implementation of the order to collect samples again and requested an analysis within the permissible level of emission.

(5) 이에 피고는 역시 령 제 11조 제 1항 제 2호의 규정에 따라 배출허용기준 초과여부의 검사를 위한 오염물질 채취일인 1992. 1. 6. 부터 법 제 16조의 규정에 의한 개선명령의 이행완료일인 같은 해 2. 20. 까지의 기간을 배출기간으로 산정하고 령 제 10조 제 3항의 규정에 따라 경기도보건환경연구원의 검사결과 배출허용기준치를 초과한 것으로 판명된 BOD, COD, SS의 배출허용기준 초과율별 부과계수등ㅇㄹ 곱하여 위 기간중의 배출부과금으로 금3,082,150원을 산정하였다.

According to the above facts, the defendant calculated the discharge dues lawfully in accordance with the above provisions of the law regarding the calculation method of discharge dues. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is without merit on the premise that the defendant's disposition of this case is illegal, and it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.

June 23, 1994

Judge Ansan-chul

Judges Isewn