토양정밀조사명령처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, since Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the submission or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.
(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this context is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance). 2. The second part used or added to "in the above land" in Part 14 for the second reason shall be added "in the above land" and "No. 14" in Part 3, 19 of the third part shall be added "No. 14" to "No. 14, 15."
The 7th 15-16 testimony of the witness A in this Court shall be made by taking the witness "the witness A's testimony in this Court" into "the witness A's testimony in the first instance trial."
Each "petroleum class hydrocarbon" of the 8 to 5-6 and 9 to 10 vehicles shall be divided into "petroleum total hydrocarbon".
The 8th parallel 14 to 9th parallel 11 shall be done in the following manner:
“2) In the above facts, the Plaintiff asserts that it is difficult to view that there was a natural contamination process due to oil leakage in light of the depth from the point of outflow to the point of outflow to the point of origin near the ground surface. However, according to the evidence No. 21, the Environmental Health Technology Institute stated that the soil content of the instant land may spread from a variety of forms depending on the characteristics of soil, underground water, rain, etc., rather than a simple vertical spreading mainly at the point of outflow, and therefore the distribution of depth contamination concentration may vary within the same site or on the same site. ② The Plaintiff asserted that there was a possibility that there was a lot of oil use since the Plaintiff used it as a factory before acquiring the instant factory, and the said company was a manufacturer of machinery. However, the Plaintiff started to operate the instant plant from the instant land.