2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The "discharge inspection" in the second 2th 9th th 2th 2th 2th 1st 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th

B. Article 25 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Clean Air Conservation Act was deleted at the bottom of two pages of the judgment of the first instance.

The following criteria are 0.1 pm for the application of the Convention on the Conservation of Clean Air, which is newly established by the above amendment, and 0.08 pm for the application of the Convention on the Conservation of Clean Air, which is set forth in Article 24-2 and subparagraph 8-2 of the attached Table.

d. The phrase “(7) Nos. 7 and 7” of the first instance court’s 3 pages 3 shall be deemed to read “No. 7 and No. 7.”

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The reasoning for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

1. From 3, 13 up to 4 pages 13 up to 3 pages 13 up to the following:

In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff asserted that the underlying statute of the instant disposition was unconstitutional, and withdrawn this part of the claim in the first instance trial.

In particular, according to the official air pollution test standards to be observed at the stage of collecting and analyzing samples, “the value of test results less than the test result of the method scam shall be deemed not to have been detected and shall be indicated by scam.” In addition, among the sample collection and analysis result of the instant disposition, the value of bents test results is 0.01 pm which is 0.01 pm which is the method scam for the above air pollution test standards.