(a) Whether the provisions of Article 14 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act apply to the business operator who has completed the improvement work in accordance with the order of the improvement in the future;

(b) The emission period in cases where the improvement is completed by itself before issuing the improvement order;

(c) Whether the results of inspecting pollution levels of the materials determined by Article 14(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act are limited to those of the inspection institutions of lakes and marshes under Article 25(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act;

A. If a business operator complies with an order of improvement after receiving the order of improvement under Article 18(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act, the business operator can be imposed an emission dues for only the period until the date when the improvement is completed by reporting without delay to the Minister of Environment, i.e., the date when the pollutants exceeding the permissible emission level are discharged. However, if the business operator completed the improvement work in advance before receiving the order of improvement before receiving the order of improvement, there is no legal ground to promptly report the improvement to the Minister of Environment, and if the business operator reports the completion of the improvement after receiving the order of improvement, and if the business operator imposes the emission dues for the discharge period until the date when the pollutants exceeding the permissible emission level are actually discharged, the business operator is subject to the imposition of the emission dues even on the date when the pollutants exceeding the permissible emission level are not actually discharged. Thus, Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13904, Jun. 9, 193) does not apply to the business operator completed the improvement work in advance.

B. It is reasonable to consider the purpose of the Water Quality Conservation Act and the reasons for imposing discharge dues in cases where the improvement is completed before the order of improvement under Paragraph (a) as the discharge period until the date of the actual completion of the improvement work in accordance with the order of improvement.

C. Articles 22 and 44 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 4653 of Dec. 27, 1993) and Articles 51 through 57 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 453 of May 24, 1994) shall establish a measurement agency system, provide for the technical ability, facilities and equipment, procedures for designation, water purification management, etc. to be equipped by measurement agency, and impose the duty of recording and preserving measurement results on measurement agency, and strictly regulate and supervise them from the designation of measurement agency by the Minister of Environment, such as the matters to be observed, grounds for disqualification, and cancellation of designation. In light of the above, it is not always possible to determine the cases where the discharge period of the pollutant or emitted material is changed, but it is not limited only to the result of inspecting the pollution level of the inspection agency under each subparagraph of Article 25 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Conservation Act, but also limited to the method of measuring and its credibility.

(a)B.(a)Article 14(1)(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act; Article 18(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act; Article 14(2) and Article 18(1)(c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act; Article 25(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 453 of May 24

JinJJ Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Han River Governor, Attorneys Yoon Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu15139 delivered on December 1, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13904 of Jun. 9, 193) provides for the method of calculating emission dues and the criteria thereof in Articles 10 through 13, and Article 14 (1) provides that "in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the Minister of Environment shall repeatedly calculate and adjust dues, but if there is any difference between the adjusted amount and the dues, the difference shall be again imposed or refunded;" and subparagraph 1 provides that "in cases where the emission period of pollutants which form the basis of calculation of emission dues is changed due to the completion of improvement or the scheduled completion date of implementation of the order under Article 11 (1)", and Article 14 (2) provides that "in cases of adjusting emission dues due to the cause as referred to in subparagraph 1 of paragraph (1) of this Article, the period of pollutant emission to calculate emission dues shall be reported to the business operator who has completed the improvement order without delay by the date of completion of improvement or order under Article 6 (3) or 18 (1).

In addition, Articles 22 and 44 of the Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 4653 of Dec. 24, 1993) and Articles 51 through 57 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 453 of May 24, 1994) shall establish a measurement agency system, and shall specify technical ability, facilities and equipment, procedures for designation, water purification management, etc. to be equipped by measurement agency, and shall have the duty of recording and preserving measurement results, and shall be strictly regulated and supervised by the Minister of Environment from the designation of measurement agency, such as the matters to be observed, grounds for disqualification, and cancellation of designation.

On March 11, 1993, at least 10:50, the lower court: (a) conducted an inspection of wastewater and preventive facilities for the Plaintiff Company’s factory factories; and (b) requested an inspection to the Gyeonggi-do Health and Environment Research Institute; (c) the Defendant issued an improvement order to supplement each of the above facilities on the 24th day of the same month; (d) the Defendant collected samples from the Plaintiff Company’s factory before the 15th day after the 1st day of the above improvement order and submitted an improvement order to the Plaintiff; and (e) the Defendant issued an improvement order to the Plaintiff on April 13 of the same year after collecting samples from the Plaintiff Company’s factory to the 15th day after the 15th day after the 1st day of the above improvement order and the 1st day after the 15th day after the 1st day of the above improvement order and the 3th day after the 15th day after the 1st day of the above improvement order and the 16th day after the 1st day of the above improvement order.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)