2018Gu 11628 Revocation of suspension of operation

○○ Co., Ltd.

Seoul

Representative Director, Doing

Attorney O Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm Hannuri, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Sang-soo

Do Governor of Gyeonggi-do;

Government Legal Service Corporation (Law Firm LLC)

Attorney Kim Tae-hoon

1. Fents;

Gyeongbuk-gu District;

2. Grounds;

Gyeongbuk-gu District;

3. This;

Gyeongbuk-gu District;

4. A new person;

Gyeongbuk-gu District;

5. Appointment; and

Ansan-si

6. Kim

Ansan-si

Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s last delay

June 28, 2019

August 14, 2019

1. All of the supplementary participation applications by the Intervenor joining the Defendant are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The supplementary part of the costs of lawsuit is borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and the remainder is borne by the Plaintiff.

The suspension of operation for 20 days against the plaintiff on April 5, 2018 by the defendant of the Gu office shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person operating a training center A (hereinafter referred to as “the training center of this case”) in the Gancheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. On February 24, 2018, at around 07:30, the residents discovered the Myanmar floating milk in the Nakdongdong River and reported it to the Yancheon-gun. Around 12:35 on the same day, the public officials in charge of Yancheon-gun collected 4 liter of the final discharge water discharged from the wastewater treatment plant of the instant refining plant (hereinafter referred to as “the samples of this case”) and requested the examination of water quality to the Gyeongbuk-do Public Health and Environment Research Institute for North Korea. As a result, it was confirmed that the water quality was 10 times the permissible discharge standards of 0.1mg/L with 0.21mg/L, and the CY-gu Environmental Management Agency did not remove the wastewater discharged from the wastewater treatment plant of this case and the wastewater treatment facilities of this case, which were 0.5m or more of the wastewater discharged from the wastewater treatment plant of this case.

D. On April 5, 2018, the Defendant: (a) imposed a disposition of the suspension of operation for the following reasons on the Plaintiff for 20 days (the subject of subdivision: water pollution emission and preventive facilities; hereinafter “instant disposition”); (b) a violation of February 24, 2018 (hereinafter “the first violation”); (c) a violation of the suspension of operation for the following reasons: A violation of the suspension of operation for the following reasons: A violation of the permissible emission standards of hydrogen and accelerator (Article 32(1) of the Water Environment Conservation Act)

B) Criteria for administrative disposition: Enforcement Rule of the Water Environment Conservation Act [Attachment 22] 2. A. 1 A

C) An improvement order (the primary violation) was issued on the ground that thorium 2016, 10.10.10.0 is above the permissible emission level of 1mg/L with 1.943mg/L, and the measured non-carbon concentration is above 600 percent of the above Enforcement Rule [Attachment 22] 2. A. 6. Non-high 6.0%, and thus, the two-stage higher criteria (the fourth violation) are applied (the fourth violation) compared to the criteria for disposition.

2) On February 26, 2018, violation of the second violation (hereinafter referred to as "the second violation"), and the sum of the first and second violations (hereinafter referred to as "each violation of this case") - the suspension of operation 10 days.

(a) Details of violation: Discharge of water pollutants that flow into prevention facilities without passing through the final discharge outlet (Article 38(1)2 of the Water Environment Conservation Act);

B) Criteria for administrative disposition: Enforcement Rule of the Water Environment Conservation Act [Attachment 22] 2. A. 6. (e) (2). The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on October 24, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the Defendant’s Intervenor’s motion for intervention is legitimate

A. In order to intervene in a lawsuit to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case, an interest in the outcome of the relevant lawsuit must be interested. The term “interest” refers to a legal interest, not in fact an interest in economic, or emotional knowledge, which refers to a case in which res judicata or executory power of the relevant judgment is granted, or where the legal status of a person who seeks to intervene in the lawsuit is determined on the premise of the relevant judgment, even if the judgment does not directly affect the effect of the relevant lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Du36485, May 30, 2019; 2015Du56748, Nov. 9, 2017; 2015Da5301, Aug. 23, 2017).

B. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) asserts that the Defendant has a legal interest in the outcome of the lawsuit of this case in light of the following: (a) all of the Intervenors (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenors”) have been living near the Nakdongdong River (the Intervenor’s “Sttwealtwealttweal, Baltwealtwealt wet wet wet wet wet wet wet wet wet wet we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we wet we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we see that the Intervenor is in a position of being affected by water pollution; (b) the Water Environment Protection Act aims to directly and specifically protect the residents’ living benefits that are damaged by water pollution due to public health and environmental harm; and (c) the Plaintiff’s environmental infringement continues for a long period of time, and there is a high possibility of infringing the environmental rights and health rights of the Intervenors.

The Intervenor does not constitute a person who is res judicata or executory power of the judgment of the instant lawsuit, and the legal status of the Intervenor is not determined on the premise of the outcome of the instant lawsuit. As such, the Intervenor cannot be deemed to have a legal interest in the outcome of the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the Intervenor’s application for intervention in the lawsuit is unlawful as it does not meet the requirements for intervention.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Illegality of a disposition against the primary violation

A) In principle, “the method of collecting and preserving samples” (hereinafter “the method of collecting and preserving water pollution test”, which is a public notice given under Article 6(1)5 of the Environmental Examination and Inspection Act in violation of the principle of multiple extractions, is subject to multiple collections by stipulating that samples are collected at least twice at intervals of at least 30 minutes in a case where samples are collected in a manual. On February 24, 2018, when the collection of samples in this case was conducted at least 12:35 on February 12:35, 2018, the temporary suspension of the treatment facilities of the so-called “the condition of the facility was operated normally after the completion of at least 06:50 on the same day, and thus, it does not constitute an exception to the principle of multiple extractions, but the public official in charge violated the principle of multiple extractions set forth in the fair testing by cutting water pollution samples in this case.

B) Under the premise that the concentration of hydrogen in wastewater is measured at 29.2g/L and above 600 percent of the permissible emission levels, the Defendant applied the two-stage high-level disposal standards (fourth violations) to the suspension of operation. However, there was no problem with the operation of purification facilities related to the treatment of hydrogen at the time, and the leakage of wastewater was caused by the malfunction of pumps which return the microorganisms of the sedimentation to be suspected of being contaminated with discharged water, which was carried out as an accelerator treatment facility. Considering the wastewater treatment process of the instant refining, the Defendant did not apply the order to temporarily suspend operation of heavy metal (1, 2, and 3 parts) prior to the introduction of the wastewater into the treatment facility, before the removal into the treatment facility, which is 10m or above, which is not the 10m or above 1m or above 2m or 1m or more of the 1m or more of the 1m or more of the 2m or more of the 3m or more of the 1m or more of the 10m or more samples in light of the water environment.

2) The illegality of the disposition against the second violation cannot be determined to have existed above the permissible discharge level. The washing water that was leaked at the time did not leak out outside the public waters, etc. and was discharged through the final discharge outlet after being discharged through the prevention facilities, such as double retaining walls and the racks, surrounding the inside of the relevant refining house, and the facilities, such as the relevant facility. Therefore, there was no reason to believe that the Plaintiff discharged water pollutants flowing into the prevention facilities without having gone through the final discharge outlet in violation of Article 38(1)2 of the Water Environment Conservation Act.

3) Subparagraph 1 (a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Environment Conservation Act [Attachment 22] provides that "if there are two or more violations, each violation shall be disposed of on the basis of each violation: Provided, That where both the criteria for dispositions under subparagraph 2 (a) through (d) and (g) are the suspension of operation or the suspension of operation, the disposal period shall comply with the criteria for the longer disposal period, and where the disposal period may be increased by up to 1/2 of the criteria for the longer disposal period within the scope not exceeding the aggregate of the criteria for each disposition, the disposal period may be increased by up to 1/2 of the criteria for the longer disposal period." Thus, the Defendant did not take measures to suspend operation for 10 days or 15 days pursuant to the above provision

4) Other deviations from or abuse of discretionary power is a disposition that deviatess from and abused discretionary power for the following reasons:

A) On February 24, 2018, wastewater outflow was caused by a temporary breakdown of micro-organism return pumps for clorate treatment facilities. On February 26, 2018, the leakage of washing water was not intentional due to an accident that occurred in the course of cleaning the pipe water, and the transfer of wastewater discharged by only some washing water due to a gap in the pipe of the pipe water, and the Plaintiff was completely prevented the possibility of the same violation by blocking the discharge pipe from being drained and removing the drain pipes.

B) According to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff is expected to suspend the operation of the entire process of the instant refining, and in such a case, it is anticipated that the period of at least six months will be required for the minimum number of months until the Plaintiff is operating the refining in a normal condition. Accordingly, enormous economic loss is likely to occur therefrom. C) If the production activity is discontinued for a long time due to the instant disposition, a large number of employees of the training center would be temporarily suspended, making it difficult for employees and their family members to live, and the decrease in the Plaintiff’s sales would have a considerable impact on the subcontractor and the public corporation. The number of employees of the training center of the instant case are residing in Dobong-gun A, a large number of employees of the training center of this case, and the residents of Dobong-gun-gun are likely to affect the instant disposition and

D) The volume of tobacco products exported by the refining company in this case accounts for the fourth world as of 2017, and it is anticipated that the destruction of export contract due to the instant disposition would have an adverse effect on external credit rating, and as a result, the national economy would have a significant impact on the national economy.

E) Since the suspension of operation of the training center of this case constitutes "a case where it is deemed that the national economy or other public interest, such as the lives, external credibility, employment, prices, etc. of residents," as stipulated in Article 43 (1) of the Water Environment Conservation Act, the defendant may impose a penalty surcharge on the plaintiff in lieu of the suspension of operation, and the defendant may impose a penalty surcharge on the plaintiff in lieu of the suspension of operation, and the disposition of suspension of operation for 20 days can be achieved sufficiently by the imposition of a penalty surcharge, despite the fact that the disposition of suspension of operation

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1. Location of the training center of this case: members of the Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun.

(b) Size: 1.2 factories: 358,569m square meters, 3 factories: 140.486m;

(C) Operating year: 1 factory (O. 1, 1970), 2 factory (O. 9, 1974), and 3 factory (O. 5, 2015): A tobacco refining and tobacco production.

2) Circumstances leading up to the investigation regarding the violation committed on February 24, 2018

A) On February 24, 2018, at around 07:30 on the river patrol, the residents of the Myeon, who discovered the same in Myanmar in the Nakdongdong River, reported it to YY. Around 12:00, a public official in charge of YY-gun, arrived at the training center of this case and was subject to brying on the company’s accident and collected the samples of this case at around 12:35 on February 24, 2018. (B) On February 24, 2018, the instant wastewater outflow occurred in the process of discharging the microbial from the facilities for the treatment of the refining of this case as below the 06:40 on February 24, 2018.

【Track of Wastewater Outflow Accident】

A person shall be appointed.

C) As a result of the same testing process for five samples conducted by the Institute of Health and Environment from the Gyeong-do, Gyeong-do, and Gyeong-do, the research institute conducted a water quality testing with 0.53mg/L, 0.59m/L, 29.2mg/L (the samples of this case), and 116.9m/L. At the time, the non-conformity testing was conducted with a method of measuring luminous intensity with the non-explosion and the time melter (UV/Vissophotom), and with a method of measuring the luminous intensity with the non-explosion and the time melter (UV/Viss) (UV) measuring the luminous intensity. The results of the testing conducted a similar method of measuring the luminous concentration of the five samples, and conducted a similar method of measuring the luminous concentration of the sample concentration of the samples using the Iromotogymm (Irhrotommommmsen).

D) The result of the inspection conducted by the person in charge of the Daegu Regional Environmental Office with respect to samples taken at 17:00 and 17:30 on the same day was confirmed to be 1.8mg/L and accelerator as 0.03m/L.

E) From February 24, 2018 to February 28, 2018, the Daegu Regional Environmental Office, the Defendant, the Salary-gun, and the Korea Environment Corporation conducted a joint inspection on the water quality, air, wastes, chemicals, non-point pollution treatment facilities, environmental impact assessment after-sales management, and vulnerable facilities in environmental pollution accidents of the instant refining stations for the purpose of investigating the cause and precise inspection of the wastewater outflow accident as of February 24, 2018. On February 26, 2018, during the period of the said inspection, 0.5 tons of high wastewater, which is the discharge chline, was additionally discovered at the discharge 0.5 tons in soil inside the instant refining facilities during the period of the inspection as of February 26, 2018.

A person shall be appointed.

F) In the course of a joint inspection with respect to the refining in the instant case, violations of the standards for the management of automatic water quality measuring instruments (Article 38-3(2) of the Water Environment Conservation Act, which are not in violation of the standards for the management of automatic water quality measuring instruments, other than the aforementioned two times (the measurement is neglected so as not to be made normally due to the inflow of deposited materials into the water intake equipment, and the water environment conservation Act), violations of the standards for the disposal of general disposal water (Article 13(1) of the Wastes Control Act, which are not in the roof and wall surface, and stored in the outdoor without walls, exceeding the permissible emission levels (Article 13(1) of the Wastes Control Act), and violations of the standards

G) On March 2, 2018, the Defendant: (a) pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, pursuant to Article 21(1) of the same Act, (b) pursuant to Article 32 of the Water Environment Conservation Act, (c) pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Water Environment Conservation Act, the Defendant issued prior notice of the suspension of operation for 10 days due to the illegal discharge of wastewater from February 26, 2018; (b) pursuant to Article 38(1)2 of the Water Environment Conservation Act due to the illegal discharge of wastewater from February 26, 2018; (c) due to the violation of Article 38-3(2) of the Water Environment Conservation Act, prior notice of the warning disposition and the imposition of an administrative fine of 5 million won due to the violation; (d) the Plaintiff made efforts to suspend operation of the instant refining on the national economy; and (e) the Plaintiff’s risk of re-operation after the suspension of operation; and (e) requested the Plaintiff to impose a penalty surcharge from 6018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7 and 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether a disposition against the primary violation is lawful

A) The official test standards for water pollution test in violation of the principle of multiple water pollution is, in principle, prescribed multiple extractions in the collection of samples to determine whether the permissible discharge levels are met (2.1), but there are cases where prompt response such as monitoring of environmental pollution at the time of environmental pollution or vulnerable time (18:00-09:00 on a Sundays, a holiday, or a day) due to the reasons for exclusion from the application of multiple sampling methods (2.1.21). Where abnormal actions under Article 38(1) of the Water Environment Conservation Act are conducted (2.1.22). Where wastewater generated within a place of business is discharged after satch or otherwise satch disposal (2.1.23).

In light of the above evidence and the facts acknowledged, the following circumstances revealed, namely, ① around 06:40 on February 24, 2018, due to the breakdown of pumps that return microbes from the facilities for the treatment of softs to the suspect, which were released from the bend in the bend in the bend in the bend in the bend in the bend in the bend in the bend in the bend in the water, and the leakage of the above wastewater was continued until 07:30 on the same day as the water was reported by the residents of the Gu. ② Since the above outflow accident occurred, a public official in the bend in the bend in the view of the fact that it was difficult to view that the water treatment facilities were operated more than three hours after the normal operation of the water treatment facilities or around 12:0,00 after the water treatment facilities were removed from the bend in the bend in the instant bend in the view of the need to promptly collect samples from the site after being informed of the accident.

B) Reliability issue of measurement results

As seen earlier, in full view of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the collection of the samples of this case from Yancheon-gun, and then the password was given to request an examination of water quality with other four samples from the Gyeongbuk-do Institute of Health and Environment, and the said researcher conducted a black test, and the 29.2mg/L of the samples of this case was measured as a result of the above research institute, ② the 5 samples were tested in the 2nd method, and the 5th test was conducted in the 2nd method, and the 5th test was conducted repeatedly after dilution to ensure the reliability of data in the case of the high density test, ③ the results of each sample tested in the 2nd method were similar, and the measurement of the 5th test was conducted in the low concentration through the lawful procedure and method, and there is no reason to suspect the reliability of the measurement results.

The Plaintiff asserted that, prior to the instant case, the concentration of water pollutants in wastewater did not exceed the permissible level. Considering that the samples collected after about five hours after the collection of the instant samples measured with 1.8mg/L, the measurement results of the instant samples cannot be trusted. However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had conducted a dilution process due to water quality pollutants in the instant refining station since 07:50, when the wastewater treatment facilities in the factory were normally operated after the normal operation of the relevant refining plant, and the wastewater treatment facilities in the instant refining plant was normally operated after the wastewater treatment facilities in the factory. The concentration of water quality pollutants can vary depending on the quantity and quantity of water discharged in the process of reworking the relevant facility, and thus, the concentration of water pollutants in the relevant wastewater may vary depending on the quantity and quantity of water discharged in the process of reworking the facility, and due to the characteristics of reaction that the concentration of water pollutants in the instant wastewater was less than that of other raw materials, the concentration of samples in the instant wastewater collection facility was not more than 5 hours after the elapse of the collection level.

C) Whether an improvement order is applied

Article 35(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Environment Conservation Act defines the type of measuring instruments to be installed with a measuring device pursuant to Article 38-2(1) of the Water Environment Conservation Act as place of business, preventive facilities (including common prevention facilities), public wastewater treatment facilities, or public sewage treatment plants (hereinafter referred to as "place of business, etc. equipped with measuring instruments"), or the type of measuring instruments to be installed with a measuring device shall be prescribed in attached Table 7. Under attached Table 7, the type of measuring instruments shall be classified into automatic water quality measuring instruments, ancillary facilities, integrating, and integrating flow, and double automatic water quality measuring instruments shall be classified into automatic water quality measuring instruments, chemical oxygen demand (COD), water quality quality measuring instruments, automatic water quality quality measuring instruments, general water quality measuring instruments, general (T-P) automatic water quality measuring instruments, and air quality measuring instruments, which are installed by the Plaintiff, and such excessive quantity of hydrogen and aluminium can not be applied to the Plaintiff's automatic water quality pollution measuring instruments in excess of the permissible emission levels, as well as air pollution inspection concentration in the Plaintiff's-specific-specific and 2 air pollution measuring instruments.

2) Whether a disposition against the second violation is lawful

A) The former part of Article 38(1)2 of the Water Environment Conservation Act provides that a business operator or a person who operates a prevention facility shall not commit an act of discharging water pollutants flowing into prevention facilities without passing through the final outlet. However, it does not require that the discharged water pollutants exceed the permissible discharge standards or are directly discharged into public waters. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit without further review.

B) We examine the argument that water pollutants leaked by double retaining walls and facilities, such as a water tank, surrounding the inside of the refining house of this case, have been reconstructed to preventive facilities through movement within the factory, not through the public waters, etc... In light of the overall purport of video and oral argument as seen earlier, it is acknowledged that the water pollutants that were leaked to the facilities, such as a double retaining wall and a water tank, were discharged to the soil where 0.5 tons of the washing water leaked to the inside of the excellent drainage at the time, or where the water pollutants flow out of the facilities, such as a water tank, were discharged to the final outlet. In light of the location of the discharge outlet and the final outlet, the discharged water pollutants that did not pass through the final outlet at the time were discharged to the soil pipelines below the above washing water, and it seems reasonable to view that the Plaintiff violated Article 2 of the Water Environment Conservation Act, as alleged in the ground of the second ground for the second violation of Article 8 of the Water Environment Conservation Act.

3) Aggregation of suspension of operation

A) According to the Enforcement Rule of the Water Environment Conservation Act [Attachment 22], subparagraph 1(a) provides that where the criteria for disposal are fully suspended, the disposal period shall be set on the criteria for disposal with a longer time, and the disposal period may be increased by up to 1/2 of the longer disposal standards within the extent not exceeding the total standards of each disposition criterion (hereinafter “instant provision”). It is apparent in the language that the said provision does not include “where a violation is discovered on the same opportunity” or “where a violation is discovered on the same day” as the suspension period is not subject to the absorption or aggravation of the suspension period. However, the instant provision is clear in cases where a single violation falls under multiple related laws and regulations or where multiple related laws and regulations already occurred are discovered on the same opportunity (including cases where a violation has already been discovered at the time of the timely suspension of operation, but it is also discovered after the date of the additional suspension of operation), the disposal of the facility may be excessively harsh to the violator.

As can be seen as having been determined, it is reasonable to deem that a separate violation occurs after the detection of the violation as in the instant case, and that it does not apply to the case where a separate violation occurs or is discovered. In particular, since multiple violations are discovered in the same opportunity or a single act is more likely to be subject to criticism than multiple violations, applying the said provision to each of the instant violations, the reduction of the period of suspension of operation to 10 days or 15 days would rather result in unfair consequences.

B) Even if the instant provision is interpreted to apply both to multiple violations, the criteria for punitive administrative dispositions in the form of Ordinance are merely stipulated in the administrative agency’s internal rules for handling affairs, and thus, it has no effect to externally bind citizens or courts. Thus, the instant disposition is not immediately unlawful solely on the ground that it did not comply with the instant provision.

Rather, the determination of lawfulness of the instant disposition ought to be based on the content and purport of the relevant laws and regulations, as well as the above disposition standards (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Du963, Oct. 24, 2013; 2015Du45342, Nov. 26, 2015); where a business operator or a person operating preventive facilities violates permissible emission levels under Article 32(1) of the Water Environment Conservation Act (see, e.g., subparagraph 10), or where a business operator or a person operating preventive facilities commits an act falling under any subparagraph of Article 32(1) (see, e.g., subparagraph 10) or Article 38(1) of the Water Environment Conservation Act (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du963, Oct. 24, 2013). According to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant’s order to suspend the operation of the discharge facilities or operation thereof for not more than 6 months among the instant provisions for 20 days.

It is recognized that the disposition of this case was taken upon receiving a reply to the effect that the operation suspension disposition should be taken, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have abused discretion in the disposition of this case, and the defendant, rather, can be deemed to have reached the above disposition as a result of sufficient consideration for the proper exercise of discretion.

C) Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff to the effect that the sum of the period set by the disposition standards for each violation by the defendant was exceeded and abused discretion against the disposition standards set by the Enforcement Rule.

4) Whether or not there is any deviation or abuse of discretionary power

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, even considering all the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, the public interest to be achieved through the instant disposition cannot be deemed to be less than the Plaintiff’s disadvantage resulting therefrom, and thus, it cannot be said that there was an error of deviation from and abuse of discretion in the instant disposition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

A) On February 24, 2018, the Plaintiff’s violation of the Water Environment Conservation Act by emitting approximately 0.5 tons of wastewater in the instant refining center, which was implemented due to the wastewater outflow case, without going through the final outlet during the period of joint inspection. During the inspection period, environmental laws and regulations, such as violation of the standards for management of automatic water quality measuring instruments, improper storage of wastes, and violation of the standards for disposal of controlled wastes, were also discovered. It is determined that all of them were derived from the management of wastewater known to the Plaintiff. In light of the amount of wastewater discharged at the time of each of the instant violations, the degree of violation of the Plaintiff’s laws and regulations is insignificant.

B) The Plaintiff had a history of violating the environmental-related laws and regulations several times even before the instant disposition. From 2016 to 2018, violations of the environmental-related Acts and subordinate statutes were 36 cases in total, including insufficient operation and management of wastewater and air discharge facilities, insufficient atmosphere emission standards, excess of permissible emission levels, water quality pollutants, unauthorized discharge of water pollutants, and violations of the standards for the management of controlled wastes. In particular, on September 19, 2017, the Plaintiff’s act of damaging or neglecting the equipment attached to air pollution prevention facilities (second violation) was discovered, and on October 23, 2017, the Plaintiff was imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 60,000,000 for the suspension of operation due to the Defendant’s violation of Article 31(1)4 of the Clean Air Conservation Act, even though it was imposed by the Defendant, it appears that the Plaintiff did not have any intent to improve the management of facilities in the instant refining and the environment. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act of imposing a penalty surcharge on the Plaintiff’s violation of the relevant laws and regulations.

C) As asserted by the Plaintiff, the loss of wages of workers during the period of suspension, the decline in the credit rating and economic loss of the company due to the suspension of operation, the risk of accidents that may occur during the period of suspension of operation, etc. seems to be an issue to be resolved by the Plaintiff by securing inventory through additional production prior to the commencement of the period of suspension of operation, inspection and repair of facilities during the period of preparation for the re-operation.

D) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s violation of the laws and regulations is not insignificant, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have committed an inevitable violation. Moreover, the instant administrative disposition does not constitute a case where the local residents’ health and living environment are likely to cause serious damage, or where it is necessary to reduce the period of the instant disposition for public interest. As such, the grounds for mitigation prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 105(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Environment Conservation Act are not acknowledged, but rather, each of the instant violations is more severe punishment in that it constitutes a violation of the important public interest, such as the prevention of water pollution and the preservation of the water environment in public waters

4. Conclusion

Since the Intervenor’s motion to intervene in the instant case is unlawful, it is dismissed. The Plaintiff’s motion to intervene in the instant case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-han