The case holding that the judgment below erred in the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing in finding that the imposition of discharge dues based on the result of the analysis of the sample collected in the settling section, not the final outlet of the wastewater treatment plant

The case holding that the judgment below erred in the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing in finding that the disposition of imposing discharge dues based on the result of analysis of the sample collected in the settling section, not the final outlet of the wastewater treatment plant

Article 19-2 of the Environmental Preservation Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Gyeonggi-do Branch

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu1874 delivered on November 21, 1989

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below held that the plaintiff's wastewater treatment plant structure of this case is a specific heavy metal compound (Cr), Dong, Zn (Zn) chemical treatment method discharged in the process of Do gold, and that it is not appropriate for the plaintiff to dispose of pollutants through the chemical treatment method of Zn, and three converging and converging three converging and converging and filteringing which are attached to each house, and the above converging are divided into two stages, and the wastewater treatment process is divided into two stages, and it is not appropriate for the plaintiff to dispose of pollutants through the final treatment method of 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, and 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, and 4.

However, in order to ensure that the level of contamination of all the water flowing from the water flowing through the sediment or the water flowing through the final outlet is equal as in the above reaction as in the original judgment, the above harmful substance must be presumed to have been purified only through the chemical treatment under the above reaction but not to have been removed from the physical treatment of the water such as response, bedy, bedy, bedy, and bedy, bedy, and bedy, and bedysy, and bedysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysys.

Furthermore, the plaintiff asserts that the wastewater treatment process is first applied to the first reaction, that the chemical compound is discharged from water by melting the substance into water during the process of the chemical reaction so that hazardous substances, such as the sacrifine and saceine, etc., mixed with the chemical substance with the wastewater and the sacrifine, etc., become a more heavy and larger chemical compound by the chemical reaction. In addition, it is difficult to see that the reaction does not act as a wastewater treatment after the reaction if it is the process of the wastewater treatment.

Although the court below should have further examined what is the detailed contents of chemical treatment that occur in the reaction, what is the function and operation principle of the bed and what is the substance of the pollutants that are infinite, and what is the relation between the chemical treatment and the physical treatment of the pollutants of this case in the purification and removal of the pollutants of this case, the court below did not reach this point, and held that the disposition of this case is legitimate in accordance with the result of analysis of samples collected in Articles 1 and 2 of the Act on the Grounds that the chemical composition (pollution level) of the water flow through the 1 and 2 be the same as the water flowing through the 1 and 2 bed through the evidence as seen above, it cannot be said that the court below violated the rules of evidence or did not exhaust all necessary deliberations.

However, the court below found the collection point of this case as a result of a 1 and 2 be in violation of the rules of evidence as seen above, but if it was found that the collection point was the final discharge point contrary to the judgment below's approval, the disposition of this case should be deemed lawful, and the confirmation (No. 1) prepared by the plaintiff company's management engineer and the non-party b who was present at the above collection point is the final discharge outlet. The non-party, as a qualified holder of Grade 2 environmental engineer, shows that the collection point of samples as a result of the 1 and 2 be in violation of the final discharge point's results from the 1 and 2 be in violation of the rules of evidence, but the court below accepted the collection point or the final discharge point's collection point's contents as well as the evidence that all of the collection point and the final discharge point's contents were identical to the content of the evidence No. 1 and the above evidence No. 2 were found to be less than the evidence No. 1 and the evidence No. 2 had been found during the above examination.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)