logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.01.10 2019구합50599
폐쇄명령 처분 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a company engaged in the manufacturing business of the water source metal plant, is manufacturing the water source metal, etc. at a factory located in Kimpo-si B (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) designated as a natural green area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

B. On December 12, 2018, the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant detected specific substances harmful to water quality, such as the Guide (Cu) 51.750 g/L, lead (Pb) 57.00 g/L, 2.4 g/L, as a result of the examination of wastewater ingredients with respect to one gold cooling water tank installed at the instant business establishment (0.324 x 0.9 x 0.6 x 0.6 m) installed at the instant business establishment on December 12, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant facility”). C. The instant gold cooling water tank

On January 28, 2019, the Defendant issued an order to close down the instant facilities pursuant to Articles 44 and 71 of the former Water Environment Conservation Act and Article 105 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Water Environment Conservation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 829, Oct. 17, 2019; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 33(1) of the former Water Environment Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 15832, Oct. 16, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply) by installing and operating the wastewater discharge facility without permission.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s entries in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and Eul’s Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that wastewater contaminated in the process of the process of the non-existence of the facility’s claim 1 can not be deemed to fall under wastewater discharge facilities as stipulated in the former Water Environment Conservation Act if it was not discharged externally. Since the instant facility functions as a cooling water where the water loaded in the upper part is in a fast-down and fast-down shape, and only functions as a cooling water where the water discharged in the upper part is planted, it is only the generation of wastewater, but does not plan the external discharge of wastewater. The daily maximum volume of wastewater exceeds 0.01 cubic meters due to the non-discharge of wastewater.

arrow