2019Guhap8286 Revocation of Disposition of Refusal to Allocation of Emission Permits

Attached Table 1 is as shown in the list of plaintiffs.

Attorney Lee Dong-gu, Justice Seo-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Minister of Environment

Government Legal Service Corporation (Law Firm LLC)

Attorney Lee Dong-tae

2020, 6,11

September 3, 2020

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiffs on October 31, 2018 is revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Outline of the greenhouse gas emission trading system;

1) The Government shall establish medium and long-term targets for reducing greenhouse gases and each phase (Article 42(1)1 of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth), establish the Act on Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits to achieve such targets (hereinafter referred to as the "Emission Trading Act"), the "basic plan for the emissions trading system" and the "national emission trading plan" in accordance with the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and shall establish an annual allocation plan for greenhouse gas emissions to allocate the permissible amount of greenhouse gas emissions to each company that discharges greenhouse gases, and implement the greenhouse gas emission trading system that allows each company that discharges greenhouse gases to trade

2) On April 14, 2010, the government set the State's goal of reducing total nationwide gas emissions by up to 30/100 compared to the estimated greenhouse gas emissions in 2020, and set the so-called "2020 road map", which is the step-by-level goal to achieve this goal. However, on June 1, 2016, the State's goal of reducing total national greenhouse gas emissions by up to 37/100 compared to the estimated total greenhouse gas emissions in 2030, and the so-called "2030 road map map, which is the step-by-level goal to achieve this, was newly established. Since the government reviewed the "2030 road map" around July 20, 2018 to revise it to the "basic road map to accomplish the State's goal of reducing total greenhouse gas emissions by 2030" (hereinafter referred to as "the road map").

3) The government established a ten-year basic plan for the emissions trading system, which sets forth mid- and long-term policy objectives and basic direction for the emissions trading system of greenhouse gases. 4) On January 2014, the government established the first emission trading plan (2015-2017) and the second emission trading plan (2018-2020) around January 2017, respectively.

4) In order to effectively achieve national greenhouse gas reduction targets, the Government has established national emission permits allocation plans, including total emission allowances for each commitment period, sector and type of business subject to allocation of emission permits, standards and allocation of emission permits by sector and type of business, compliance year 5) emission permits allocation standards and allocation standards and allocation of emission permits by compliance year, and emission permits allocation standards and allocation methods to business entities eligible for allocation. 6) On September 2014, the Government has established "State emission permits allocation plans for the first commitment period (2015~2017)" (hereinafter referred to as "first allocation plan").

5) On January 2017, the government established and publicly announced the National Emission Permits Allocation Plan for the first commitment period (hereinafter referred to as "the first commitment period allocation plan") in line with the national greenhouse gas reduction targets newly established in the 2030 road map as the ‘2020 road map' was replaced by the ‘the first commitment plan for the emissions trading system' and the first allocation plan for the first commitment period. The government established and publicly announced the "the first revision allocation plan for the first commitment period" (hereinafter referred to as "the first revision allocation plan").

According to the first allocation plan, the plaintiffs were classified into the so-called ‘development and energy type' in the area of ‘conversion', but the said ‘development and energy type' in the first allocation plan is divided into the so-called ‘development energy type' in the area of ‘conversion', ‘integrated energy type' and ‘industrial complex' in the area of ‘industrial complex'. 7) In addition, in accordance with the first allocation plan, the plaintiffs were allocated emission permits in advance for the remaining 20 types of business except for the six categories of business.

B. On July 24, 2018, the Government established and publicly announced the second commitment period (2018 to 2020), including the following: (a) the National Emission Permits Allocation Plan (2018 to 2020).

I. 2. A summary of the second allocation plan. 2. 2. 2. The second allocation plan will be utilized to the maximum extent possible in order to achieve the effectiveness of national objectives. It will enable fair and transparent emission trading in accordance with the market principles. 3. After the establishment of the second allocation plan and the establishment of the first allocation plan, 591 business entities eligible for allocation have allocated emission permits in advance 538,461,00 KAU for the year 2018. 2. The sectors and types of business eligible for allocation of emission permits. 1. Criteria for selection are selected in consideration of the impact on national greenhouse gas emissions, the possibility of measurement, and the possibility of implementation of the system. The results of the selection: Five sectors based on the first allocation plan and the first alteration plan, and the classification of sectors and types of business eligible for allocation of emission permits; 26 categories 2.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

3. Industrial complexes in the sector of "industrial complexes" such as trade intensity and production costs; 3. Industrial complexes in the sector of "industry to which the plaintiffs of free allocation type belong" are designated as free allocation type because it is difficult to separate allocation types under the Korea Standard Industrial Classification; 2. Calculation of emission volume after reduction (referring to the calculation method of total emission allowances, etc. for each sector or business type) in the year of implementation (1. from 2018 to 2020) (2). (3) Calculation of emission volume by sector or business type after reduction (referring to the "state" 2030). 2. Calculation of emission volume by sector or business type after reduction (referring to the calculation of total emission volume by sector or business type 60. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 1. 2014. 1. 7. 1. 2. 1. 6. 6. 2. . 2. 1. 1. . 3. 1. . 3. . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..... .... ..... . . . . ..... . ......... ...................................................

1) 국가목표 아래 업종별 감축목표를 세분화하지 않고, 부문별로 감축목표를 제시하는로드맵과의 정합성을 확보2) 2차 계획기간부터 시행되는 배출권 유상할당을 위해 업종 구분을 세분화함에 따라1차 계획기간의 26개 업종을 업종별 할당량의 구분 기준으로 삼기 곤란3) 동일 업종의 할당대상업체 내에도 이종 사업장이 다수 분포하고 있는 국내 산업구조와 EU-ETS 등 해외사례 감안4) 1차 계획기간과 같은 업종별 할당량 구분을 통해 업체별 할당량 산정 시 동일 부문내 업종 간에 조정계수의 차이가 발생하여 제기될 수 있는 형평성 논란 방지나. 다만, 다음 업체 사업장 또는 배출시설 활동에 대해서는 예외적으로 부문 내 별도의업종별 할당량을 구분하여 설정1) '2030 수정 로드맵' 및 1차 할당계획에 비추어 별도의 업종별 할당량 설정(산업' 부문 내 '1차 철강 제조업', '반도체 제조업', '전자부품 제조업', '가정용 기기 제조업' 등의 불소계 가스 공정 배출에 대하여 별도의 할당량을 설정하는 내용을 포함)2) 1차 계획기간 변경계획의 취지에 따라 기존 '집단에너지' 및 '산업단지' 업종의 경우별도의 업종별 할당량 설정 유지가) '전환' 부문 내 '증기, 냉온수 및 공기조절 공급업(353)'에 해당하는 업체나) '산업' 부문 내 '증기, 냉온수 및 공기조절 공급업(353)'에 해당하는 업체↑ 원고들이 속한 업종 구분으로서 2차 계획기간에 대하여 총 39,968,697 KAU(각 이행연도별로13,322,899 KAU)의 배출권이 할당되었다.3) 일부 대규모 배출활동의 경우 구분 필요성을 종합적으로 판단하여 별도의 업종별 할당량 설정(전환' 부문 내 '전기업', '가스 제조 및 배관 공급업', '산업' 부문 내 '석탄 광업', '도자기 및 기타 요업제품 제조업', '시멘트, 석회 및 플라스터 제조업'에 대하여 별도의 할당량을 설정하는 내용을 포함)IV. 배출권 예비분2. 개념: 배출권 추가할당, 시장안정화조치 및 시장 유동성 관리 등을 위하여 정부가 계획기간 배출권 총수량 중 일정 부분을 사전 할당하지 않고 보유하는 배출권4. 예비분의 설정나. 예비분 규모: 용도별 예비분의 규모는 다음 기준으로 산정3) 기타 용도: 1차 계획기간의 신규진입자에 대한 배출권 할당 및 추가할당 할당취소실적, 8차 전력계획 등을 고려하여 각 부문 예비분 산정가) 전환' 부문은 해당 부문 배출허용량의 10.5%, 나머지 부문은 각 해당 부문 배출허용량의 5.5%로 산정

2. Allocation of emission permits by company: The allocation of emission permits to each business entity eligible for allocation which does not include the allocation of emission permits for each business entity eligible for allocation within the scope of total emission permits for the pertinent commitment period and annual emission permits for each business entity eligible for allocation, as follows: The allocation of emission permits for each business entity eligible for allocation in accordance with the timing and requirements for allocation: The allocation of emission permits for each business entity eligible for allocation in advance through the prior application for allocation in accordance with the existing facilities of the business entity eligible for allocation before the beginning of the commitment period; the allocation of emission permits for each compliance year; the allocation of emission permits for each business entity eligible for allocation in advance. The adjustment coefficient: The allocation coefficient: The total amount recognized by each business entity eligible for allocation in advance for allocation in the pertinent compliance year or each business entity belonging to each business type does not exceed the allocation of emission permits for each compliance year; the calculation of allocation of emission permits for each business entity eligible for allocation in advance for allocation in accordance with the guidelines for allocation in the pertinent compliance year and guidelines for allocation in 20% of total emission permits for each business entity eligible for allocation.

2) On September 12, 2018, the Defendant received an application for the allocation of emission permits from the Plaintiffs, such as the details stated in attached Table 2, and notified the Plaintiffs on October 31, 2018 of the allocation of emission permits as stated in each of the following: (a) the Defendant allocated emission permits to the Plaintiffs; and (b) the remainder was not allocated (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

3) The Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on January 28, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim on August 13, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 and 4 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Violation of the Emission Trading Act

The Defendant did not properly reflect the Plaintiffs’ increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to the construction and extension of the enormous production facilities that belong to the industrial complex type upon allocating emission permits by type of business. In particular, there were exceptional circumstances where the Plaintiff Company A extended the amount to about 50% of the production facilities in 2016 to about 15% of the total industrial complex emission volume of greenhouse gas emissions in the entire industrial complex. Such circumstances constitute “extension that stipulates that the allocation of emission permits shall be fully reflected in determining the allocation of emission permits by type of business in accordance with the Emission Trading Act and the allocation guidelines established and implemented upon delegation from the Act.” Therefore,

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s second allocation plan does not reflect about 15% of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the pertinent industrial complex type of business, as it is, in the allocation of emission permits by type of business, on the ground that the Defendant decided to allocate emission permits by type of business, considering the average greenhouse gas emissions in the base year, and reflects only about 5% of the average increase in the base year three years. As a result, the Defendant under-assignments emission permits to the Plaintiffs belonging to the industrial complex type of business, which is contrary to the law and allocation guidelines that stipulate that actively reflects the prospects for

2) Violation of the principle of equity

According to the results of the allocation of greenhouse gas emission permits for the second commitment period, all other types of business have risen so that the adjustment coefficient has increased compared to the first commitment period, and as a result, the defendant did not fully take into account the expansion of production facilities for industrial complexes, the obligation to reduce greenhouse gas was significantly strengthened due to the application of adjustment coefficient lower than the second commitment period than the first commitment period only for the type of business in the industrial complex. Moreover, even if the defendant would take the principle of allocating emission permits for each sector in the second allocation plan, the industrial complex, the industrial complex of which production facilities have been significantly increased, has been allocated as much as the type of business in the industrial complex by allocating emission permits for each type of business in the "industry" sector, as a principle

In the end, the defendant unfairly distributes greenhouse gas reduction obligations between types of business, which is a problem that is not balanced and equitable that requires consideration in the emission trading law or the second allocation plan in the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions.

(iii) the deviation and abuse of discretionary authority;

The defendant should exercise its discretionary power as to the disposition of this case, such as granting a separate adjustment coefficient to the plaintiffs, or allocating emission permits to each sector by integrating the industrial complex's sector's sector's sector's sector's industry's industry's industry's industry's industry's industry's industry's industry's industry's unit, or controlling the volume of deducted reserve, and allocating additional emission permits to the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the defendant suffered enormous loss, such as where emission permits allocated to the plaintiffs by failing to exercise discretionary power are insufficient as much as 1,509,710 KAU,9) in 2019, 2019.

(b) Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 3 shall be as listed in attached Table 3.

(c) Arrangement of relevant statutes, including the Act on Trading Emission Permits, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and guidelines for allocation;

A) The Government shall establish a basic plan for emission trading and national emission permits allocation plans for each commitment period in order to achieve national targets for reducing greenhouse gases and implement the emissions trading system for greenhouse gases (Articles 4 and 5 of the former Act), and the defendant shall allocate all emission permits for the pertinent commitment period and emission permits by year to business entities eligible for allocation in accordance with the national emission permits allocation plan for each commitment period in order to implement the emissions trading system for greenhouse gases. In such cases, the criteria for allocation of emission permits shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 12(1) and (2) of the former Act on Emission

B) The former Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act, upon delegation of the former Act, stipulates that the allocation of emission permits by business entity eligible for allocation shall be determined in consideration of the amount of greenhouse gas emissions or technological level of greenhouse gas emissions of the relevant business entity eligible for allocation, the amount of emission permits allocated by sector or business type determined according to the national emission allocation plan, etc. (Article 12(1)). In such cases, the Minister of Environment determined detailed matters concerning the calculation method of allocation of emission permits by business entity eligible for allocation and announced it in the Official Gazette (Article 12(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act).

C) Accordingly, guidelines for allocation publicly notified by the Minister of Environment are detailed matters concerning the designation of business entities eligible for allocation, methods of calculating allocation of emission permits by business entity eligible for allocation, and adjustment and revocation of allocation of emission permits

In particular, the allocation guidelines define that the design capacity of the existing facilities is increased by 10/100 or more in preparation for the change by adding physical changes directly to existing facilities that contribute to production activities, and that greenhouse gas emissions are increased by 5/100 or more in preparation for the change (Article 2 subparagraph 16). In addition, when the defendant prepares a plan to determine the allocation of emission permits by business entity eligible for allocation, the allocation guidelines stipulate that the production facilities of the relevant business entity eligible for allocation shall calculate the estimated greenhouse gas emissions by different methods depending on the period when the production facilities of the relevant business entity eligible for allocation are operated in the base year and the time when the extension is made (

2) Review of the instant case

A) First of all, the statement in Gap evidence No. 6 (the Integrated Energy Business Manual in 2017 and 2018) concerns the management performance in 2016 and 2017 of the "Collective Energy Business" including the "Industrial Complex" to which the plaintiffs belong. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the production facilities of the plaintiff A were extended to approximately 50% in 2016 as the plaintiffs' assertion, or that the greenhouse gas emissions in the industrial complex type have increased to about 15% in 2016, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

B) Even if the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from Plaintiff A Co., Ltd and industrial complex type of business has increased significantly in 2016 as alleged by the Plaintiffs, such circumstances should be considered as “extension as set forth in the allocation guidelines,” and such circumstances should not be considered in the process of allocating greenhouse gas emission permits to each industry.

As seen earlier, the allocation of greenhouse gas emission permits to business entities eligible for allocation is made by the process of allocating emission permits to the business entities eligible for allocation in consideration of the existing facilities and the amount of applications by the business entities eligible for allocation within the scope of "amount of emission after national reduction", "amount of emission after reduction by sector or by business type", "amount of emission by sector or by business type for business entities eligible for allocation", excluding reserve portion, etc. among them, (see the second allocation plan III. 4. and V.). The allocation guidelines set forth the allocation guidelines within the scope of "amount of emission permits allocated to the business entities eligible for allocation belonging to the relevant sector or by business type," which is the last stage of the above procedure.

Therefore, even if there were circumstances corresponding to "extension" under the allocation guidelines as alleged by the plaintiffs, it is nothing more than an element to consider when distribution is made between the business entity eligible for allocation, and it is not more than a factor to consider the allocation of ‘industrial complex' for each type of business already calculated.

C) Even if the second allocation plan was issued in accordance with the second allocation plan, the Plaintiffs asserted that the pertinent disposition was in violation of the superior laws and regulations, such as the Emission Trading Act, and thus, the second allocation plan and the instant disposition based thereon do not comply with the superior laws and regulations.

However, there is no provision regarding the specific factors or methods of calculation in addition to the matters to be included in the government in establishing a national emission permit allocation plan and the procedures to be included therein. This is the intent of the legislators to grant wide range of planning discretion so that the government can establish a national emission permit allocation plan to achieve national greenhouse gas reduction targets.

In light of the following circumstances, the content of the second allocation plan (see, e.g., the second allocation plan III. 4, 2016) determined to consider the average amount of greenhouse gas emissions in three years (2014 to 2016) of the base year in calculating the amount of allocation by sector or by business type is reasonable and reasonable, and the second allocation plan and its related interests are fairly compared and balanced, and the disposition of this case based on the second allocation plan and its related interests cannot be deemed to be contrary to the superior laws and regulations, such as the Emission Trading Act.

Unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to regard that the increase or decrease in greenhouse gas emissions occurring during a certain period of time in the past continues to operate the same business continuously and to pursue profit-making and continuity of the company seeking to pursue profit.

○○ The first commitment period (2015 to 2017) and the second commitment period (2018 to 2020) respectively are three years, respectively, and the subsequent commitment period are planned to be five years, and it is also reasonable to set the base period for the base year to fully measure past greenhouse gas emissions based on the judgment.

Pursuant to the Act on Trading Emission Permits, the planning period for which the Government formulates the basic plan for the emissions trading system and the plan for allocation of national emission permits is between three and five years, so even if an enterprise continues to engage in the same business, the establishment, extension, and closure of production facilities may be conducted from time to time.

However, the basic plan for the emissions trading system or the national emission permit allocation plan must be consistently promoted in order to achieve national greenhouse gas reduction targets under the 2030 Road Map. Therefore, it is inappropriate to determine that the contents of the plan are to be reflected in cases where circumstances, such as the construction, extension, closure suspension, etc. of production facilities continue for a certain period, using the average value of three years in the base year, such as the second allocation plan.

3) The plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(d) whether it is against the principle of equity by applying excessively low adjustment coefficient or by allocating emission permits to type of business unreasonably;

(i)the adjusted coefficient part;

A) As seen earlier, the adjustment factor is set so that the total sum of emission permits allocated to each business entity eligible for allocation does not go beyond the allocation by the relevant business entity or by business type (see second allocation plan V.2. d.), and the adjustment factor is a certain amount to be calculated in accordance with the fixed formula 11). The adjustment factor is a certain amount to be determined in accordance with the purport of the application and the formula to calculate it. As can be known from the foregoing formula, the total sum of recognized amounts of greenhouse gas emissions recognized individually for the business entity eligible for allocation belonging to a certain business entity or a type of business (see second allocation plan III. 4. and this decision 2. c. 2. b. b. of this decision) is limited to the function to adjust so that it does not go beyond the allocation by the relevant business entity or type of business, and it does not in itself impose any additional burden on the business entity eligible for allocation (the pertinent business sector or type of greenhouse gas reduction burden is determined in calculating "amount of greenhouse gas reductions or type of business").

B) Furthermore, we examine the meaning of the adjustment coefficient.

(1) The circumstance that the adjustment coefficient of a certain sector or a type of business is lower than that of another sector or type of business means that the average greenhouse gas emissions (i) of the business entity eligible for allocation in the relevant sector or type of business was lower than that of the recognized volume among the total quantities applied for the allocation by the business entity eligible for allocation belonging to the relevant sector or type of business (the total amount of 11 stories in each of the above week; hereinafter referred to as the “original characters”), while the amount of emissions after the reduction by sector or type of business which is the premise of the allocation by sector or type of business and the permissible emission volume, or the average greenhouse gas emissions (ii) of the relevant sector or type of business was higher in the relevant sector or type of business year as an average greenhouse gas emissions (i) in the relevant sector or

(2) However, among the elements for calculating the above adjustment coefficient, the key elements that can measure the gravity of greenhouse gas reduction burden in any sector or type of business are the emission volume after the reduction of the corresponding sector or type of business. First, the fact that the aggregate (ii) of recognized volume of greenhouse gas emissions is high during the commitment period deemed reasonable by the Minister of Environment after reviewing the application, etc. for allocation of business entities eligible for allocation belonging to the pertinent sector or type of business entities eligible for allocation, and thus, it is not a circumstance that the Minister of Environment is obliged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in itself in comparison with other sectors or types of business. Rather, the above recognition volume is an expected emission volume supported by the application for allocation, specifications, and evidentiary materials based on the quota applied by the allocation company. Therefore, the above recognition volume is basically different depending on the applied volume of business entities eligible for allocation.

in this chapter.

(3) On the other hand, the circumstance that the average greenhouse gas emissions (3) in the pertinent sector or a business entity eligible for allocation of business entities eligible for allocation was lower than that of the average greenhouse gas emissions in the pertinent sector or a business sector year’s entire base year, does not affect any particular determination as to whether the average greenhouse gas emissions (3) in the pertinent sector or a business entity eligible for allocation was fairly divided between different sectors or business types. This is because the aforementioned two values are limited to the role of fairly distributing greenhouse gas emissions between the business entity eligible for allocation and other business entities within the pertinent sector or business sector. (4) Ultimately, the argument that the low adjustment coefficient that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions was unfair due to the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions after the reduction of the pertinent sector or business type was lower than that after the reduction of the emission volume by the pertinent sector or business type, constitutes the allegation that there was unfair content of other plans, such as “2030 road map for revision of the emission volume after the reduction of the emission volume by sector or business type,” but rather, there is no evidence to acknowledge it as to “30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the road map.”

2) Division of types of business

A) The industry to which the plaintiffs belong is classified into the so-called "power generation and energy" type in the first allocation plan. However, the first alteration allocation plan is divided into the "power generation energy in the sector", "integrated energy type", and "industrial complex in the sector" as the type of "industrial complex". The second allocation plan is in principle established only by sector, but the second allocation plan is determined separately for the group of collective energy and industrial complex type of business according to the purpose of the first alteration plan. The second allocation plan is, in principle, the allocation of 3% of the allocation to each company by auction, etc., by 3% of the allocation to each company. The industrial complex type of business is, as the "morch, hot water and air control supply business" along with the integrated energy type of business, and is allocated in advance without compensation in consideration of trade intensity, production cost, etc.

B) Taking into account the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking into account the facts acknowledged earlier, it is difficult to view that a secondary allocation plan, which stipulates that the allocation of emission permits should be set aside separately from the remaining types of business in the sector of "industry" for industrial complex to which the plaintiffs belong, has borne an unfair burden of reducing greenhouse gases to the industrial complex.

0. Since the secondary allocation plan is determined based on the average amount of greenhouse gas emissions by other sector or by business type, it is reasonable to classify the same sector as the one in which average amount of greenhouse gas emissions is expected to be similar in light of the characteristics of the business, or to set the allocation of emission permits by the same method. However, industrial complexes have been classified from the initial allocation plan to the same sector as "conversion" in the first allocation plan, and according to the Korean Standard Industrial Classification, industrial complexes are still classified as "cat, cold water and air-conditioning supply business," and the business characteristics are similar to different types of business in the "industry", such as where industrial complexes and integrated energy are still the same as "cat, hot water and air-conditioning supply business."

Since the second allocation plan stipulates that allocation by type of business should be separately set in consideration of business characteristics, etc. for various types of business in the sector of "conversion" and "industry" besides the industrial complex type, it is not deemed exceptional to set the allocation by type of business for the type of industrial complex type.

0 Although the second allocation plan was allocated in advance only 97% of the allocation to each company without compensation, it is difficult to view that the circumstance that the allocation by type of business is set separately from the remaining types of business in the sector of "industry" because the type of business in an industrial complex falls under steam, cold and hot water and air control supply business under the Korean Industrial Standards Classification, along with the integrated energy type.

3) The plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(e) Whether there is a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority

1) In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, while making the instant disposition, abused and abused its discretionary power, taking into account the aforementioned factors, by adding up the descriptions of Gap evidence 2, 3, and Eul evidence 1.

○ All citizens shall have the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment, and the State shall endeavor to preserve the environment (Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea). In particular, even if the natural environment is the most basic base of living for the people, it cannot be substituted with other resources, and considering the characteristics that the impact of the damage cannot be reflected and difficult to recover, it shall be managed and preserved in a responsible manner for the safety and happiness of us and us's descendants. As a result of the emission trading system and its concrete implementation, the instant disposition aims to effectively cope with climate change, such as delayed increase in the average global temperature by reducing the total greenhouse gas emissions of the State, and such public interest is significantly large in consideration of the above meaning of the natural environment.

On the contrary, barring special circumstances, such as that the disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiffs as the instant disposition is merely an economic disadvantage that is to purchase emission permits for a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions, and thus it is impossible to continue to operate the business, it is difficult to view the disadvantage as an excessive disadvantage to the extent that it is impossible to justify the above public interest. The shortage of emission permits in the year 2018, 1,509,710, as claimed by the Plaintiffs, and 1,559,591, KU, which is 13,322,899, which is allocated in each year, is merely about 11.3% of the emission permits allocated in each year and about 11.7% of the KU (refer to 3.6. b, 2, 322,899, 2). It does not in itself mean that it is a large burden.

○ Adjustment coefficient is a certain value calculated according to the prescribed mountain formula, and the total emission permits of business entities eligible for allocation are only to prevent the total emission permits from exceeding the allocation by sector or by business type, and it does not affect the degree of greenhouse gas reduction obligations that a business entity eligible for allocation bears in and out of the relevant sector or by business type, separate from the process of calculating allocation by sector or by business type, which is high and low. Therefore, it does not appear that the defendant could have reduced the burden of greenhouse gas reduction by establishing a separate adjustment coefficient against the plaintiffs

Although the plaintiffs asserted that it was possible to establish a separate adjustment coefficient for each business entity eligible for allocation under Articles 9(7) and 11(2) of the Allocation Guidelines, Articles 9(7) and 11(2) of the Allocation Guidelines apply to certain sectors or types of business classified by the fair emission of greenhouse gases, the type of greenhouse gas emissions from energy use, or the type of business or activity of emission. On the other hand, since the plaintiffs or industrial complexes have not separately set the adjustment coefficient from the Allocation Plan, each of the above allocation guideline provisions do not serve as the basis for separately setting the adjustment coefficient for the plaintiffs.

○ The Defendant determines the allocation of emission permits by business entity eligible for allocation, taking into account the expected emission quantity by year of implementation of the existing facilities according to the allocation plan (Article 9(1) of the Allocation Guidelines), and the secondary allocation plan stipulates that an industrial complex type of business shall separately establish the allocation for each type of business, considering the purpose of the primary allocation plan and the characteristics of the business, separately from the remaining types of business in the sector, in consideration of the purpose of the primary allocation plan and the characteristics of the business. As seen earlier, it is not unreasonable to set the allocation for each type of business in the secondary allocation plan to the industrial complex type of business as seen earlier. Therefore, it is difficult

As seen earlier, the government calculated total permissible volume of emission for the second commitment period at the stage of establishing the national emission permit allocation plan, and calculated the amount of allocation by sector or by type of business after deducting the reserve portion among them. However, the second allocation plan is not deemed to have an exceptional high deduction rate for the reserve portion in the industrial complex sector to which the plaintiffs belong, as it deducts the reserve portion of the same ratio en bloc for each other in consideration of the circumstances such as the current portion to be done for the new business entity eligible for allocation during the first commitment period, the revocation of allocation, and the 8th electric power plan.

2) The plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

F. Sub-committee

The instant disposition is not in violation of the Emission Trading Act or the guidelines for allocation delegated by the Act, and it does not violate the principle of equity by imposing the Plaintiffs a heavy burden on the business entities eligible for allocation belonging to other business types, and there is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant’s discretionary power was deviates or abused in relation to the instant disposition.

The instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, presiding judge, chief judge

Judges Park Jung-sik

Judges Park Jong-won

1) Greenhouse gas exhaust for the last three years pursuant to Article 8(1) of the former Emission Trading Act (amended by Act No. 17104, Mar. 24, 2020; hereinafter the same)

It shall determine whether to be subject to the greenhouse gas emission trading system on the basis of the annual average total amount of emissions;

A business entity that discharges greenhouse gases classified above shall be referred to as a business entity eligible for allocation.

2) Article 25 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27180, May 24, 2016);

(1) The target of greenhouse gas reduction under Article 42 (1) 1 of the Act shall be the total amount of national greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 greenhouse gas emissions in 2020.

It shall be reduced by up to 30/100 of the observation for withdrawal.

3) Article 25 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth (amended by Presidential Decree No. 30303, Dec. 31, 2019);

(1) The target of greenhouse gas reduction under Article 42 (1) 1 of the Act is to establish and manage a total amount of national greenhouse gas emissions in 2030.

It shall be reduced to 37/100 of the estimated emission.

4) Article 4(1) of the former Emission Trading Act: Provided, That the first commitment period is from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017, and the second commitment period is from January 1, 2018.

Until 2020.12 and 31. [Article 2(1) of Addenda to the Emission Trading Act (Act No. 14 May 14, 2012).]

(v)the allocation of emission permits to greenhouse gas-emitting business entities on a yearly basis in order to achieve national greenhouse gas reduction targets for each commitment period and their performance results;

The term "years during the commitment period set to be managed" means each year (Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the former Emission Trading Act).

6) Article 5(1) of the former Emission Trading Act

7) The category of so-called "integrated energy" and "industrial complex" correspond to "the steam, cold and hot water and air control supply business (co., code: 353)" according to the Korean Standard Industrial Classification.

The type of "powerd Energy" falls under "electric power industry" and "gas production and pipeline supply business"; hereinafter the same shall apply except in cases where it should be specified.

In order, ‘integrated energy business', ‘industrial complex business', and ‘electric energy business' are called ‘integrated energy business'.

8) The KAU is a trade unit of emission permits used in the emissions trading system and 1 KAU is a 1 COU ton of 1 carbon dioxide equivalents.

TCO2-eq is applicable to global warming, which is a unit that raises a quantity of greenhouse gases equivalent to one ton of carbon dioxide.

Article 2 subparag. 6 of the former Emission Trading Act, Enforcement Decree of the former Act on Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits (Presidential Decree No. 30944, Aug. 18, 2020)

Article 23 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act").

9) It asserts that the current emission price has reached approximately KRW 55.4 billion.

10) It asserts that the current emission price has reached approximately KRW 58.7 billion.

11) Adjustment coefficient = Allocation by sector or by business type of each compliance year (the average greenhouse of the base year of the relevant sector or business type eligible for allocation);

Gas emissions: (1) After reduction of the relevant sector or type of business, x the average greenhouse gas emissions in the entire national base year of the relevant sector or type of business;

Discharge - Reserve : Total of recognized amounts among the annual applications for allocation filed by business entities eligible for allocation belonging to each sector or business type;

12) The term “passion” in the electronic litigation record.

13) Part 32.7% for the building "building" in 2030, 29.3% for the "transport" sector, 28.9% for the "waste" sector, and 28.9% for the "public other" sector.

The door is set at 25.3%, respectively.