2. The Defendant’s disposition of non-permission regarding the application for permission to install air discharge facilities filed with the Plaintiff on November 24, 2010 is revoked.

3. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation costs, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The reasoning for use in the instant case is as follows: (a) the part on the corresponding part of the first instance judgment (from the second to the seventh sentence) other than the following: (b) the part on the grounds for use in the instant case concerning the Plaintiff’s assertion and determination. (c) The part on the facts of recognition is identical to the corresponding part of the second instance judgment (from the second to the seventh sentence). It is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of

Until the second to the third to the third to the third to the end, the Defendant applied for the permission to change the installation of air pollutants under the Special Act on the Improvement of Air Quality in the Seoul Metropolitan Area and the permission to change the installation of air pollutants under the Clean Air Conservation Act (hereinafter the “instant application”), and applied for the permission to change the installation of air pollutants under the Clean Air Conservation Act in order to change the boiler facilities and pollution prevention facilities due to the replacement, and the emission of air pollutants (hereinafter the “facilities for which the above application for change was made,” is regarded as

○ The third fourth 4th day of the application was rejected as “the application of this case was rejected in entirety.”

From 9, 10th to 12th, the term “the third place” means “the permission to install air emission facilities (including the permission to change the installation of places of business for air pollutants) under Article 23(6) of the Clean Air Conservation Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall not be granted (including the permission to change the installation of places of business for air pollutants).”

Under the third below, the second "specific substances harmful to water quality" shall be deemed to be "alulgic, lead, cadmium, etc. which are specific substances harmful to water quality".

The term “the instant power plant” that takes the fourth eightth place into consideration as “the emission facilities newly installed in the instant power plant”.

○ The term “instant application” that takes the fourth 11th place as “application for the installation of air emission facilities during the instant application.”

○ 5. Added Act and subordinate statutes shall be added to the "relevant Act and subordinate statutes" attached to the "relevant Act and subordinate statutes."

From the 17th to the 20th 17th , the following contents are followed:

The Ministry of Environment presented an opinion that it is necessary to restrict the use of specific air pollutants in the atmosphere surrounding the city, such as AlpF (RPF, waste plastic solid fuel) hydrogen, cadmium, and cadmium, based on the on-site investigation into facilities using solid fuels held on November 17, 2010, which were held on November 12, 2010 before the instant disposition, based on the on-site investigation into facilities using solid fuels conducted on December 12, 2010.

2. A new part.

D. Determination

1) Determination on non-permission for the change in the installation of business place under total air pollutants control

A) According to the latter part of Article 14(1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Air Quality in the Seoul Metropolitan Area (hereinafter “Special Act on Metropolitan Air Quality”), a person who has obtained permission to install a place of business which discharges pollutants subject to total volume control (referring to nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxide, and dust; see Article 8(1)8 of the same Act) in an atmosphere control zone in excess of the permissible emission quantity prescribed by Presidential Decree shall obtain permission for change from the Minister of Environment. According to Article 15 of the same Act, the Minister of Environment shall not grant permission for change if the total permissible amount of emission exceeds the permissible amount of local emission due to change of the place of business when he/she receives an application for permission for change of the place

According to the above provisions, where a person who has obtained permission to establish a place of business discharging pollutants subject to total volume control in an atmosphere control zone intends to change permitted matters, he/she is required to obtain permission for change from the permission-granting authority, and does not clearly stipulate the standards for granting permission for change in any case. In cases where permission for change is not granted, the scope of the total permissible amount of local emission is limited to cases where permission for change is not granted, and in such cases, he/she is allowed to grant permission under certain conditions. In light of the form, system, language, etc. of these regulations, whether to

B) In full view of the following circumstances, it does not seem that the Defendant’s disposition of non-permission to change the installation of a place of business under the Special Act on the Metropolitan Air Quality Control does not deviate from or abuse discretion.

① As Class I district unit planning, etc. was already established in the vicinity of the instant power plant, the resident population in the vicinity of the instant power plant is anticipated to be at least 20,000 persons residing within 1 km in the radius in the near future. According to the basic urban planning on 2020, the estimated number of persons expected to board and alight from the secondary railway station, which is newly established as a project for the construction of the uniforms from Sungnam-do to Sung-ju, 2015, 14,225, 16,868 (Evidence No. 7) and 2020,000 persons expected to be at least 2,40 persons.

② It is clear that the Plaintiff’s installation of the instant facility and the installation of the instant facility will require a certain period of time until normal operation, and it would continue in the future to emit specified air pollutants in the instant facility. In light of the purpose of the Special Act on the Atmospheric Environment, which improves the air quality of the metropolitan area and systematically manages air pollution sources to protect local residents’ health and create a pleasant living environment, there is a need to protect the increased resident population and living environment and the resident population and living environment to be affected by the continuation of the instant facility until the normal operation of the facility.

③ In addition to the Leecheon-si and the Ministry of Environment, there is an opinion that the use of solid fuels may adversely affect the atmospheric environment, and thus, it is necessary to properly restrict the use of the solid fuels. The location of the waterworks business place that supplies drinking water to Leecheon-cheon citizens at a place away from 300 meters from the power plant of this case. In light of the fact that the use of solid fuels in the facility of this case is difficult to be deemed to contribute to the long-term environmental conservation and improvement in light of the fact that the use of solid fuels in the facility of this case does not contribute to the long-term environmental conservation and improvement in consideration of the fact that the installation of the facility of this case is necessary for the public interest to limit the installation of the facility of this case in order to protect the health and living environment adjacent to the power plant of this case.

2) Determination on non-permission on the installation of air discharge facilities

A) Non-performance of the requirement for restriction of permission

According to Article 23(1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 10893, Jul. 21, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Article 11(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22601, Dec. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), a person who intends to install emission facilities generating specified hazardous air pollutants (see subparagraph 9 of Article 2 of the same Act, and Table 4(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act) shall obtain permission from the Minister of Environment in cases where he/she intends to install facilities generating specified hazardous air pollutants (see subparagraph 1 of the same Article; hereinafter the same shall apply) in excess of the permissible emission levels set under Article 16 (1) of the same Act; and Article 11(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, he/she may annually impose restrictions on installation of emission facilities which are generated from not less than 20 tons of hazardous air pollutants (see Article 16(1) of the same Act).

According to the above provisions, a Mayor/Do Governor may refuse to install emission facilities with respect to a person who intends to install emission facilities generating specified hazardous air pollutants only if the application for permission fails to meet the requirements for permission under Article 23(5) of the Clean Air Conservation Act or meets the requirements under Article 23(6) of the same Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree

The Defendant, based on Article 23(6) of the Clean Air Conservation Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, rejected the Plaintiff’s application for permission on the installation of a standby emission facility. Although there are 18.47 tons (No. 6) exceeding 10 tons per annum, which are specified hazardous air pollutants discharged from the instant facility, at the time of the instant disposition, the 1km population from the instant facility does not reach 20,000 persons (the Defendant asserts that the 20,000 persons or more who are 20,000 persons or more who are 1,451 persons or more who are 1,451 persons at the time of the instant disposition, and that the resident population requirement should be determined as at the time of the instant disposition. However, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of nonpermission based on Article 23(6) of the Clean Air Conservation Act and Article 12(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of nonpermission on the remainder of the Plaintiff’s installation of a discharge facility.

B) As to the additional disposition

(1) Whether the grounds for the disposition can be added

An appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition is not allowed in view of the substantive rule of law and the protection of trust to the people who are the other party to the administrative disposition, by citing a separate fact that is not deemed identical to the original reason and the basic fact-finding. However, any other reason may be added or modified to the extent that the original reason and the basic fact-finding are deemed identical. The existence of the basic fact-finding in this context is determined based on whether the social factual relations, which are the basis of the disposition, are basically identical by taking into account the specific facts before the legal evaluation of the grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du4482, Nov. 26, 2004).

The Defendant’s additional disposition is a facility that discharges copper, lead, cadmium, etc., which is a specific substance harmful to water quality under the Act on the Conservation of Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem, and thus cannot be installed at the location of the instant electric power plant belonging to the Special Measure Area for the Conservation of Water Quality of Yongsan Water under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy. The basic fact that the instant facility is installed, which is identical to the initial disposition, is identical to the instant disposition. The Defendant may assert the grounds for the additional disposition.

(2) Determination as to the additional disposition

According to Article 22 (2) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, the Minister of Environment may restrict land use and installation of facilities within a special measures area designated and publicly notified by him/her after consultation with the head of the relevant central administrative agency and the Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, only where it is necessary for the improvement of the environment within the special measures area due to an area where environmental pollution, environmental damage, or a significant change in the natural ecosystem is remarkable or is likely to occur. Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is deemed likely to cause serious harm to residents' health and property or the growth of living things (Article 5 (1) of the same Act). (Article 22 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for the restriction on land use and installation of facilities within the special measures area (Article 3) where the natural ecosystem is deemed likely to be seriously destroyed (Article 4); Article 22 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Conservation of Water Quality and Water Quality of the Ministry of Environment (Article 36 of the Ministry of Environment).

However, according to Article 23(5)2 of the Clean Air Conservation Act, the criteria for permission to a person who intends to install an emission facility of air pollutants (hereinafter “discharge facility”) stipulate that “the restriction on the installation of emission facilities under other Acts does not violate the provisions governing the restriction on the installation of emission facilities.” A Mayor/Do Governor shall not grant permission for the installation of emission facilities in a case where he/she violates the provisions governing the restriction on the installation of emission facilities of air pollutants under other Acts. The emission facilities discharging specific substances harmful to water quality do not constitute air pollutants prescribed in the Clean Air Conservation Act. The instant facilities do not constitute the emission facilities discharging specific substances harmful to water quality. Even if the instant facilities cannot be installed in the instant power plant due to the emission facilities discharging specific substances harmful to water quality, the Plaintiff may not refuse

3. Conclusion

The non-permission disposition on the installation of air emission facilities in the instant case is improper. The relevant part of the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the disposition corresponding to the revoked part is revoked. The remaining appeal by the Plaintiff is dismissed.

【Supplementary Acts and subordinate statutes omitted】

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)