1. The order of suspension of operation issued by the Defendant on November 29, 2017 to the Plaintiff on November 29, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an enterprise that produces petrochemicals, such as Eethylene and professional siren, by establishing a lead decomposition plant in B in around 1991 after heating crude oil or petroleum chemical half-finished products and repeatedly responding to it in liquid. The Plaintiff is operating so-called “flux”, which is a device to prevent pollutants from being discharged into the air by completely burning waste gas generated in the above process.

B. On June 14, 2017, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor, who manages air pollutant emitting facilities, issued an improvement order pursuant to Article 33 of the Act on the ground that the Plaintiff, on June 13, 2017, “(i) was partially amended by Act No. 1626, Jan. 15, 2019; hereinafter “Act”) exceeded 2 degrees of Hegel deposit, which is the maximum permissible emission level under Article 16 of the Clean Air Conservation Act,” and (ii) the Defendant, who manages fugitive emission facilities, issued a warning to the Plaintiff on July 21, 2017.

In addition, on August 2, 2017, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor accepted the completion report on the Plaintiff's above improvement order.

C. After that, on September 6, 2017, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor issued an improvement order again pursuant to Article 33 of the Act on the ground that “the instant accident occurred on September 5, 2017,” and the Plaintiff exceeded the permissible sales level (hereinafter “instant accident”). On November 29, 2017, the Defendant, who manages fugitive emission facilities, issued an order for improvement again pursuant to Article 38-2(6) and Article 84 of the Act; Article 134(1) [Attachment Table 36] 2(c) (i) and (b) of the Enforcement Rule (hereinafter “instant Rule”) for ten days (10 days (from December 28, 2017 to January 6, 2018) based on the instant Rule).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) chimney falls under the discharge area stipulated in Article 38-2 (1) of the Act.