1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance concerning this case are added to the following parts, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for further determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion. As such, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

In addition, Article 10 (Succession to Rights and Obligations) of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (hereinafter “Industrial Cluster Act”) is added to Section 4 of the first instance judgment, Section 4 of the fourth instance judgment, and Article 10 (Succession to Rights and Obligations) of the fourth instance judgment, and Section 5 of the fifth instance judgment, Article 10 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act provides that “If a person who has obtained approval for the establishment of a factory transfers the factory, the transferee succeeds to the rights and obligations of the transferor concerning the factory,” and Article 10 of the same Act provides that “The transferee succeeds to the rights and obligations of the transferee is limited to the matters provided for in the Industrial Cluster Act, and it shall not be deemed that the transferee succeeds to the obligation to pay the excess discharge dues as provided for in the

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) Hyundai Franc takes over the Plaintiff’s workplace pursuant to Article 36(1) of the former Water Quality Ecosystem Act; and (b) succeeded to all rights and obligations related thereto; and (c) the Defendant, despite the fact that it is necessary to impose an excess effluent charge on the Hyundai Franc who succeeded to the obligation to pay the wastewater effluent charge under the former Water Quality Ecosystem Act, was imposed on the Plaintiff; and (d) thus,

B) From around 2005, since the Water Quality Conservation Act (the Water Quality Conservation Act was amended on May 17, 2007, and the name of the law was changed from November 18, 2007 to the Water Quality Conservation Act.

Despite the amendment, the Defendant is not an individual entrepreneur until September 2010.