The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Case summary and key issue

A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following circumstances.

(1) The Plaintiff was establishing and operating a ready-mixed factory in the Shinsi-si population B and C (hereinafter “instant land”) around October 1993. The Plaintiff obtained approval for the alteration of a factory under the former Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 6842, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter “former Industrial Placement Act”) from the Defendant on May 4, 2001, and operated the Defendant around May 29, 2002 with the alteration of a factory under the former Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 7779, Dec. 29, 2005; hereinafter “former Clean Air Conservation Act”) and the alteration of a factory under the former Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 7779, Dec. 29, 2005; hereinafter “former Clean Air Conservation Act”) to use a fuel of 30.65 tons per year at an existing ready-mixed factory and operated a factory with an annual total of 253 tons or less of air pollutants.

(2) At the time of the establishment of the instant plant, the Plaintiff submitted a plan to install emission facilities and preventive facilities on the premise that specified hazardous air pollutants in the instant plant are not emitted, and are only emitted from dust and exhaust gas due to storage, mixture, and fuel use, and received the approval for modification of the establishment of the said factory and the report for modification

(3) The land in this case is the Act on the Utilization and Management of National Land (No. 6655, Feb. 4, 2002; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) at the time of the establishment of the factory in this case.

It has been enacted and enforced from January 1, 2003.