The case holding that the order for closure of wastewater discharge facilities and air discharge facilities is legitimate in case where the previous disposition considered as the permission for the installation of wastewater discharge facilities and the report for the installation of air discharge facilities is no longer effective and its validity expires under the conditions added to the disposition, and the order for closure of wastewater discharge facilities and air discharge facilities

[1] Article 21(1) of the former Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 7168 of Feb. 12, 2004); Article 21(1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act

Macheon Textiles Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Young-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Spocheon Market

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu15312 delivered on June 20, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The court below, based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged the facts of the judgment, and determined that the building area of the plaintiff's factory is 413.3 square meters, and is included in the factory subject to additional registration pursuant to the "Guidelines for Conditionally Registered Factory and Unregistered Factory Registration" under Article 3 of the Addenda to the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (Act No. 4212 of Jan. 13, 1990) enacted by delegation of Article 3 of the Addenda to the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, which was enacted by Act No. 4212 of Jan. 13, 1990, and further, the type of the plaintiff's factory's type of business constitutes a "low-pollution industry" and a transfer pledge to the effect that the plaintiff's factory will close the factory of the present location within three years and move it into a double industrial complex.

In light of the relevant statutes and the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding the relevant legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation. In addition, there is no evidence that the plaintiff's factory falls under the previous conditional registration factory as above and its registration is due to the defendant's illegal administrative guidance. Thus, the ground of appeal disputing this issue cannot be accepted.

2. Article 4 (1) of the Addenda to the Water Quality Conservation Act and Article 4 (1) of the Addenda to the Clean Air Conservation Act provide that "any person who has obtained permission for the installation or alteration of discharge facilities under the provisions of Article 15 (1) or (2) of the previous Environmental Conservation Act at the time this Act enters into force shall be deemed to have obtained permission under the provisions of Article 10 (1) or (2) of the previous Act." The plaintiff's factory has obtained permission for the installation of discharge facilities from the defendant on March 9, 1983 under the provisions of Article 15 (1) of the former Environmental Conservation Act (repealed by Act No. 4257, Aug. 1, 1990). Thus, the permission for the installation of discharge facilities of this case has been obtained for the wastewater discharge facilities of this case, and the report on installation under the provisions of Article 10 (1) of the Water Quality Conservation Act shall be deemed to have been accepted for air discharge facilities.

However, according to the records, on October 24, 1997, the plaintiff submitted to the defendant a written pledge of relocation of the factory to the effect that "to close the factory at the present location and move the factory to a two-way industrial complex" until June 30, 1997, and the defendant issued a certificate of registration of a factory under the conditions as of December 2, 1997 under the same purport of "matters concerning the extension of the term of implementation of the conditions for the conditional registration of the temporary river basin" (No. 1997-18) of the notification of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, and issued the certificate of registration under the conditions as of April 14, 1998 with the term of validity as of June 30, 199. Accordingly, the defendant cannot be deemed to have revoked the installation report or alteration of the previous installation permit as to the wastewater discharge facilities and the previous installation permit as of April 14, 199, and it cannot be deemed to have been revoked or altered within the reasonable period of rejection.

Therefore, the validity of the installation permission and the report on installation of a new installation has expired due to the expiration of the term of validity under the conditions attached to the new installation permission and the report on installation of a new installation report, and thus, the order to close the wastewater discharge facilities and the air discharge facilities of this case based on the Article 21(1) of the Water Quality Conservation Act and Article 21(1) of the Clean Air Conservation

Although the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, it is just and acceptable as such, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the relevant legal principles due to a violation of the rules of evidence or an incomplete hearing.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)