2019Guhap79565 Revocation of business suspension

A Incorporated Foundation A

The Minister of Environment

2020,5.29

July 17, 2020

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension for three months (from September 5, 2019 to December 4, 2019) against the Plaintiff on September 3, 2019 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) An open system for designating controlled entities and business entities eligible for allocation related to greenhouse gas emissions;

1) The Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth (hereinafter referred to as the "Green Growth Act") introduces a "greenhouse-gas and energy target management system" and designates greenhouse gas emissions enterprises and energy consumption enterprises exceeding the standard quantity as "management enterprises" and requires them to set the targets for greenhouse gas reduction, energy conservation, and energy use efficiency and to report the results thereof to the Government (Article 42).

2) The former Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits (amended by Act No. 17104, Mar. 24, 2020; hereinafter referred to as the “Emission Trading Act”) introduces the “emission Trading System of Greenhouse Gases” (Article 1); and designates companies emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases as business entities eligible for allocation of emission permits (Articles 8 and 12), and allocates emission permits (Article 8 and 12), and allows them to trade emission permits by means of trading emission permits (Article 19).

(b) Status of parties;

1) Pursuant to Articles 42(10) and 44(2) of the Green Growth Act, and Articles 32(1) and 34(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Green Growth Act, the Defendant designated the Plaintiff as an independent specialized institution that verifies the specifications, etc. of controlled entities. The Plaintiff is also deemed as an greenhouse gas emission verification institution that is an independent specialized institution that verifies the specifications, etc. of controlled entities pursuant to Article 24(2) of the Emission Trading Act and the proviso to Article 32(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act.

2) The Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy designated B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "B") or "business entity eligible for allocation in the instant case, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing petrochemical basic organic chemicals, as a controlled entity under the Green Growth Act in 2015, and designated it as a business entity eligible for allocation under the Emission Trading Act on November 16, 2017.

1) B) Pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Green Growth Act and Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Green Growth Act, B, as a controlled entity, has prepared “specifications of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption for the pertinent year from 2014 to 2016” and submitted the said statement to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy by March 31 of the following year, attaching the results of the verification by the verifying

2) Article 42(6) of the Green Growth Act and Article 30(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Green Growth Act submitted to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy the implementation plan for greenhouse gas reduction targets, etc. in February 24, 2017.

(d) Submission of a specification and monitoring plan as a business entity eligible for allocation in B, and the performance of plaintiff's detailed verification services;

1) On March 13, 2018, B entered into a service contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant service contract”) with respect to “an external verification service in the specifications of greenhouse gas emissions” from March 14, 2018 to March 31, 2018 with respect to “the period of service”. B prepared “the specifications of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption” in 2017 pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Green Growth Act and Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Green Growth Act, and the Plaintiff prepared a verification report on the relevant specifications. B submitted to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy a verification report attached to the said specifications.

2) Meanwhile, B submitted to the Defendant on January 31, 2018, a commitment period of 2018 to 2020 pursuant to the Guidelines for Reporting and Certification of Quantity of Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading System (Ministry of Environment Notice No. 2018-73), and submitted a revised monitoring plan when requesting the Defendant to modify the above monitoring plan, which was already submitted to the Defendant on March 28, 2018. Accordingly, the Defendant demanded B to submit a revised monitoring plan on the grounds that the method of calculating monitoring plan differs and the change in greenhouse gas emissions occurred.

3) Around August 2018, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the term of service from August 8, 2018 to October 5, 2018 with respect to “an external verification service in the specifications of greenhouse gas emissions” from August 8, 2014 to 2017, setting the service period as KRW 3,200,00, and the contract amount as KRW 3,200. B entered into a new contract with the Do Governor in 2014 to 2017, which had been previously submitted, and the Plaintiff entered into a revised report on the verification of the specifications in 2014 to 2017. B submitted the revised report to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy on August 7, 2018, along with the Plaintiff’s respective verification report.

E. On September 3, 2019, the Defendant issued a three-month business suspension order (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the duty of verifying greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Article 32(3)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act on the ground that “The Defendant’s business suspension order against the Plaintiff did not weighted average of the emissions of mixed fuels (LPG, LNG, and secondary gas1) in the process of verifying the specifications in 2017 and the specifications in 2014-2016, and verified the specifications calculated only by volumeing gas consumption, and caused a serious error due to intentional or gross negligence.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's statements, 1 through 3, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, Eul's statements, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate

1) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

On March 3, 2018, immediately before the expiration of the period of verification, the business entity eligible for allocation of this case changed the method of calculating greenhouse gas emission facilities to Tier 1 (IPCC3) basic emission coefficient, etc. from Tier 3 (development of the unique emission coefficient of business place). Accordingly, the Plaintiff trusted the revised monitoring plan and applied the emission coefficient under Tier 1 by using the changed monitoring plan as a verification standard. In addition to the fact that the Ministry of Environment notifies that the changed monitoring plan is appropriate, the process or facilities of the business entity eligible for allocation of this case are complicated, the process or facilities of the business entity eligible for allocation of this case, and the changed monitoring plan was prepared by mistake in the process of the verification result, there is no gross negligence by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the instant disposition is not recognized.

2) Non-existence of applicable statutes

There is no provision regarding the revocation of designation, suspension of business, etc. of the verifying agency under the Act on Emission Trading, and there is no provision regarding the revocation of designation of the verifying agency under the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Emission Trading. Therefore, the instant disposition ordering the suspension of business of the verifying agency goes beyond the limit of delegated legislation, violates the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation, and is illegal as it constitutes an indive administrative act based on the expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation without legal basis.

(iii) deviation from and abuse of discretionary power;

Although the plaintiff's gross negligence is not recognized, the defendant's disposition of this case in this case for three months of business suspension is deemed to fall under "the case where the details of the verification report and the discovery are omitted due to gross negligence prescribed in the "Guidelines for the Operation of the Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading System" (Ministry of Environment Notice No. 2018-70, hereinafter referred to as "Verification Guidelines")" (attached Table 9) and "the case where the contents of the verification report and the discovery are omitted" as prescribed in attached Table 9 2.h. 1.

Even if the plaintiff's gross negligence is recognized, considering that the plaintiff's voluntary report to the defendant on the errors found while verifying the monitoring plan of the business entity eligible for allocation of this case becomes the origin of the disposition of this case, that the business entity eligible for allocation of this case takes profits of the business entity of this case or the other business entity did not suffer losses, and that there is a harsh damage that is difficult to recover from the plaintiff due to the suspension of business, the disposition of this case is excessively excessive and excessive.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination as to whether the grounds for disposition are recognized

1) Facts of recognition

(A) the application of greenhouse gas emission coefficient under Tier 3;

(1) On the factory of the business entity eligible for allocation in this case, there were seven manufacturing process combustion facilities [the facility name AT-H8103 (daily No. 001), PX-H8701 (daily No. 002), PX-H8501B (daily No. 003), PX-H801A (daily No. 010), PX-H8502A (daily No. 011), PX-H8502B (daily No. 011), AT-H8502B (daily No. 012), AT-H8101 (daily No. 013), etc.] and one gas incineration facility [the business entity eligible for allocation in this case]. The business entity eligible for allocation in this case is mixed with LPG, LNG, and secondary gas, using the remainder of AH-103 and 016th gas of waste gas as fuel for waste gas incineration facilities.

(2) When the instant business entity eligible for allocation prepares a statement of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption from 2014 to 2016, the instant business entity has analyzed the content by gas ingredients of fuels that are put into a facility by requesting an external institution in accordance with Tier 3 emission calculation methods, and applied the greenhouse gas emission coefficient inherent in its own developed place of business.

(3) On January 31, 2018, the instant business entity eligible for allocation submitted a monitoring plan to the Defendant under the Emission Trading Act and subordinate statutes, and the monitoring plan included the following monitoring formula (fair 1). According to this, the remainder of the manufacturing process combustion facilities excluding one machine (AT-H8103) using LNG among the manufacturing process combustion facilities is indicated as “regular gas (Fuel Glas).” The calculation of greenhouse gas emissions from the above manufacturing process combustion facilities and waste gas incineration facilities was planned to apply the greenhouse gas emission coefficient self-developed pursuant to Tier 3 in calculating the greenhouse gas emissions. [1]

A person shall be appointed.

(B) the application of greenhouse gas emission coefficient under Tier 1;

(1) In accordance with the instant service contract concluded on March 13, 2018, the Plaintiff conducted on-site inspections on the instant business entity eligible for allocation on March 22, 2018. According to the on-site inspection schedule, the Plaintiff requested the instant business entity eligible for allocation to verify the content of greenhouse gas emissions in 2017, the specifications of greenhouse gas emissions in 2016, the monitoring plan (if the examination of the head of the competent agency was not completed, the final version), the application for allocation and the final confirmation of allocation, the internal examination report, the internal examination report, and the preparation of the detailed document (data management x files, distribution standards, notice, etc.), and other evidentiary materials necessary to verify other specifications (such as the number of employees, energy cost, facilities information, small-scale facility energy emission facilities, Unnnitization evidence, etc.), and other related data to be submitted before on-site inspections. The Plaintiff demanded the verification of the actual greenhouse gas emissions emission quantity and greenhouse gas emission-related data and its related data inspection on the same day.

(2) On March 28, 2018, the instant business entity eligible for allocation submitted a revised monitoring plan to the Defendant. The monitoring plan included the following (T-H8103) monitoring formula. Accordingly, the remaining ingredients used in the remaining process combustion facility 6 period and the first waste gas incineration facility excluding one (AT-H8103) using LNG among the process combustion facilities are indicated as 'other gaseous fuels 4). The calculation of the emission volume of the process combustion facility and waste gas incineration facility is instead of the greenhouse gas emission coefficient under Tier 3, instead of the facility size, the time and cost saving needed to calculate the emission coefficient using the external laboratory, taking into account Tier 1’s emission coefficient (IPCC emission coefficient and heat emission quantity).

A person shall be appointed.

(3) On March 31, 2018, the instant business entity eligible for allocation submitted to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy on March 31, 2018, the method of calculating the number of greenhouse gas emissions applicable to process combustion facilities and waste gas incineration facilities was changed from Tier 3 to Tier 1. The Plaintiff entered the following in the verification report on the said statement as a verification opinion:

0) The verification process verification conducted based on the verification guidelines for the operation of the greenhouse gas emission trading system (Public Notice of Strategy and Finance No. 2017-12), guidelines for the management, operation, etc. of greenhouse gas energy target (Public Notice of Ministry of Environment No. 2016-255), and monitoring plan [B] plan for the verification conducted based on the monitoring plan (based on the monitoring plan (prior to the agency in charge) which reflects the latest and accurate circumstances, as it is designated as a new business entity eligible for allocation in 2017)] was conducted to verify the specifications of greenhouse gas emission in accordance with the guidelines for the operation, etc. of greenhouse gas and energy target management, and the level of guarantee for the verification conducted to meet a reasonable level of guarantee.

○ The comprehensive opinionB collected, prepared, and reported the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and energy emissions in 2017 in accordance with guidelines, and verified through the verification that the amount of major emission facilities (facilities which account for at least 95% of the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions) and small amount of emission facilities was calculated without omission.

(4) On August 7, 2018, the instant business entity eligible for allocation was amended and submitted to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy for the year 2014 to 2016, and the greenhouse gas emission coefficient under Tier 1 was applied. The Plaintiff entered the following as a verification opinion in the verification report on each revised statement:

In accordance with the corrective measures of the agency responsible for the agency, the previous year statement was revised, and the accurate calculation was made by applying the method of calculating the amount of emission suitable for the scale of the facility.The other facilities using gaseous fuels do not have the unique national heat and the national inherent emission coefficient, and therefore are properly applied by Tier 1 (IPCC emission and emission coefficient) in accordance with Article 98 of "Guidelines on the Management of Greenhouse Gas Energy Target".

C) Finding errors in verification results and the Defendant’s fact-finding survey

(1) Around December 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the instant business entity eligible for allocation regarding “verification of a plan for monitoring greenhouse gases” in 2018. The Plaintiff pursuant to the said service contract.

From October 10, 2018 to December 12, 2018, the instant business entity eligible for allocation conducted an on-site inspection to verify the monitoring plan in 2018. In the process of verifying the monitoring plan, the Plaintiff discovered an error that the Plaintiff calculated the emission volume by considering the emission coefficient of each fuel inasmuch as the instant business entity eligible for allocation is a mixture of three kinds of non-gas (other gaseous fuels) as not only the non-gas (other gaseous fuels) but also the fuel that is invested in the process combustion facility 6 aircraft and waste gas incineration facilities of the instant business entity eligible for allocation in the process of verifying the monitoring plan:

A person shall be appointed.

(2) Around January 2019, the Defendant conducted a fact-finding survey on the instant business entity eligible for allocation and the Plaintiff’s emission report and verification pursuant to Article 37 of the Emission Trading Act. During the process of the fact-finding survey, a person in charge of the instant business entity eligible for allocation prepared a statement of emission in March 11, 2018, which was 2018, and revised the statement of emission in 2014-2016 to 2016, and reported the revised statement of emission to Tier 1 and Tier 2, according to the internal decision of the business entity regarding emission of emission facilities previously reported in 2018. The Defendant verified that seven facilities were used as fuel by mixing them, but only the relevant facility’s fuel emission quantity was 10 G, 2010 to 207 G, which was 100 to 201. The Plaintiff verified the fact-finding survey that it did not use the relevant statement of emission quantity.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 11, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

A) According to Article 31(1)1 and 31(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act, a statement prepared by a business entity eligible for allocation shall include “the consumption of fuels and raw materials by process of major production facilities, kinds of energy generated by each place of business and quantity generated by use, sales volume of energy generated by each place of business, and ingredients of fuels used.” According to Article 32(2)1, 2, and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act, where the content of the statement is not prepared in a method that can be measured, reported, and verifiable when verifying the statement of the business entity eligible for allocation, the verification agency shall notify the business entity of the fact that the content of the statement is inconsistent with the actual emission quantity and the details of the statement if it fails to comply with the monitoring plan. Article 7(1)1 of the Verification Guidelines shall comply with the principle that the verification agency conducts verification based on objective data, evidence, and relevant regulations and records the content accurately.

In light of the aforementioned relevant statutes and guidelines, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, as a verifying institution, is responsible to verify whether the specifications prepared by the instant agency subject to allocation conform to the implementation plan or monitoring plan, as well as whether the specifications prepared by the instant agency conform to the implementation plan or monitoring plan.

In addition, a verifying agency may request a business entity eligible for allocation to submit relevant data if necessary to conduct verification affairs, and the verifying agency shall comply with such request, unless there are special circumstances (Article 8 of the Inspection Guidelines). The verifying agency may verify the above contents by examining the documents submitted and conducting on-site verification (Article 13(3) and [Attachment 1] of the Inspection Guidelines, and [Attachment 1] provides that the verifying agency shall conduct on-site verification of conformity with the monitoring plan with the field inspection, verification of data and information, verification of the inspection of measuring instruments, verification of the management status of data and information systems, verification of the supply of greenhouse gas emission data and information system, and verification of the detailed methods for each greenhouse gas emission verification procedure. According to the on-site verification guidelines [Attachment 3] provides that the verification agency shall conduct on-site verification of the relevant business entity eligible for allocation, such as the quantity of gas purchase, inventory management records, gas delivery and electric power, identification of the actual condition of fuel in the report, and comparison of emission quantity and emission quantity of greenhouse gas emissions and the results of verification 20.

However, in the verification report of March 31, 2018 as to the statement of 2017, the Plaintiff expressed its opinion that it is inappropriate for the instant business entity eligible for allocation to select and apply the greenhouse gas emission coefficient with respect to secondary gases pursuant to Tier 1, without stating that it is not reasonable for the instant business entity eligible for allocation to select and apply the greenhouse gas emission coefficient with respect to secondary gases, which is not a single fuel for other gaseous fuels (product gas). The Plaintiff did not point out any error as above in the verification report of August 7, 2018 as to the revised statement of 2014 through 2016.

The Plaintiff is an institution specialized in the measurement and verification of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption, and fuel ingredients are one of the basic elements in the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions. The Plaintiff’s calculation of greenhouse gas emissions results in a comparative review of fuels listed in the specifications in the verification process, such as formulation of a verification plan, review of documents, on-site verification, and adjustment and evaluation of the results of verification, and fuels used in the actual field. Furthermore, according to the above evidence and the evidence No. 13, the Plaintiff appears to be able to verify whether a fuel inputs in the process combustion facility 6-term and waste gas incineration facilities by comparing the LNG consumption specifications in the year 2017 with the LNG sales notification specifications in the instant business entity eligible for allocation. In full view of these points, the Plaintiff’s failure to verify any inconsistency between the actual emission quantity and the specifications that could have been sufficiently discovered if it complies with the verification process set forth in the relevant statutes and guidelines, and thus, constitutes a serious error in verification due to gross negligence.

B) On March 26, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant business entity eligible for allocation was not recognized as gross negligence since it trusted the altered monitoring plan due to the instant business entity’s revision of monitoring plan from Tier 3 to Tier 1, and conducted verification work based thereon.

However, as seen earlier, the verification body is not simply responsible for verifying whether the specifications of greenhouse gas emissions have been prepared in accordance with the monitoring plan, but is responsible for verifying the conformity with the actual site; the method of calculating the greenhouse gas emission coefficient has changed from Tier 3 to Tier 1; depending on the type of fuel used; and the emission coefficient has changed depending on the type of fuel; thus, the Plaintiff would have been required to have conducted the verification business with more attention to the type of fuel used; the greenhouse gas emission coefficient (CO2) by Tier 3 in the statement in 2016 against Tier 61,70kmGH/TJ in the statement in 2017, against Tier 61,70km GH/TJ, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s request for the verification of greenhouse gas emissions due to a significant difference between 44,400 gGH/TJ, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s request for the verification of the results of the on-site inspection was not completed.

D. Determination as to whether the delegation legislation deviates from the limitation, whether the principle of prohibition of blanket delegation is violated, etc.

1) Relevant legal principles

In a case where a subordinate law delegates a certain matter to a subordinate law, when determining the scope of delegation of the parent law or whether the subordinate law complies with the limits of delegation, the following should be comprehensively taken into account: (a) whether the subordinate law is an essential matter to be governed by the principle of parliamentary reservation; (b) whether the legislative purpose and content of the pertinent provision; (c) the structure of the relevant provision; and (d) the relationship with other provisions; and (e) whether the delegation provision itself has exceeded the limits of literal meaning although it expressly provides for the limitation of delegation by using terms that can accurately understand the meaning in the delegation provision; (d) whether the subordinate law belongs to the scope of delegation delegated by the mother law itself; and (e) whether the subordinate law falls under the scope of delegation by expanding or reducing the scope of the terms used in the delegation provision beyond the bounds of the delegation; and (e) whether the National Assembly can be evaluated as a new legislation beyond the stage of embodying the delegation. Whether a certain matter constitutes an essential matter that the National Assembly ought to be defined by the formal self-regulation under the relevant law ought to be individually determined by taking into account the importance of interests or value in a specific case, and method of regulation.

The Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule of the Act may not change or supplement the contents of rights and obligations of an individual or determine new contents that are not prescribed by the Act, unless otherwise delegated by the Act. However, if the legislative intent of the mother Act and the entire relevant provisions are not only to specify the possibility of interpretation of the mother Act by systematically and systematically examining the legislative purpose of the mother Act and the entire provisions thereof, or if they are intended to specify them based on the purport of the mother Act and the purport of the

In such cases, even if there is no provision directly delegated to the parent law, such provision shall not be deemed null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Du19526, Aug. 20, 2014; 2015Du57277, Oct. 10, 2018).

2) Determination

A) Article 24(3) of the Emission Trading Act provides that "the detailed matters necessary for the verification of greenhouse gas emissions shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree," and Article 32(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act provides for the designation of an emission trading agency, and Article 32(3)3 of the same Act provides that "the defendant may cancel the designation of the verifying agency in cases where the designation of the verifying agency is verified due to the intentional or gross negligence of the verifying agency, etc.: Provided, That the designation must be cancelled in cases of intentional misconduct." Article 32(6) provides that "The designation of the verifying agency, the verification duty, and the revocation of designation shall be determined and publicly notified by the defendant in the official

Accordingly, Article 25 (1) 2 of the Verification Directive provides that "Where a verification agency reports the results of verification intentionally or by gross negligence, the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Science may request the defendant to suspend its business or revoke its designation for a specified period not exceeding six months," and Article 36 (1), (2), and [Attachment 9] of the Verification Directive provides that "the defendant may reduce its disposition within the scope of 1/2 of the business suspension period under [Attachment 9] if the degree of the violation is insignificant or if it is deemed that there are other special reasons in light of the content of the violation."

B) We examine whether Article 25 and Article 36 of the Review Directive (hereinafter “instant Review Directive”) which provide the basis for the instant disposition is not delegated by the Act on Trading Emission Permits and the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Trading Emission Permits. Examining the legislative intent of the Act on Trading Emission Permits and the entire pertinent provisions in an organic and systematic manner based on the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant Review Directive, which provides for the suspension of business of the verification agency conducting the verification of greenhouse gas emissions, can be deemed to have been embodied based on the purport of the Act on Trading of Emission Permits and the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Trading of Emission Permits. Thus, the instant Review Directive cannot be deemed to have exceeded the delegation scope of the Act on Trading of Emission Permits or constitutes an indivative administrative act that illegally conducted the instant disposition without any legal basis. The Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit.

(1) In full view of the legislative purpose of the Emission Trading Act (Article 1), the allocation of emission permits to business entities eligible for allocation (Article 12; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the trading of emission permits (Article 19; hereinafter the same shall apply), the greenhouse gas emissions trading system is aimed at achieving the State’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by utilizing market functions. In order to effectively function the greenhouse gas emission trading system, it should be premised on ensuring that the allocation of emission permits and the measurement and reporting of emission permits by business entities eligible for allocation, which

(2) In order to achieve the purpose and purpose of the aforementioned system, Article 24(2) of the Emission Trading Act and Article 44(2) of the Green Growth Act provide for the role of the verification body, stating that “A business entity eligible for allocation must undergo verification as to the reliability of the statement when reporting the specifications of greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with Presidential Decree.” Moreover, Article 43 Subparag. 2 and 3 of the Emission Trading Act provides that a fine for negligence may be imposed if a business entity subject to allocation files a false report on greenhouse gas emissions or fails to comply with an order to correct or supplement the specifications.

(3) As such, Article 24(2) and (3) of the Emission Trading Act requires securing the factual nature of a report on specifications of greenhouse gas emissions. As long as it is possible to designate a verifying institution, it may be deemed that the Presidential Decree delegates the authority to determine which institution is designated as a verifying institution. As long as it is possible to designate a verifying institution, management and supervision thereof are necessary as a matter of course, and there is room to take measures concerning the maintenance or revocation of designation in a case where a designated verifying institution fails to properly perform its duties. Article 32(3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act provides for the revocation of designation of the verifying institution, and it is reasonable to deem that there is room for broad formation as to the entire designation of the verifying institution and the maintenance of such designation.

(4) Article 25 of the Review Guidelines provides that a verification body may suspend its business for not more than six months, in addition to the revocation of designation under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act.

Business suspension constitutes a measure to partially restrict the performance of duties of a verifying institution, and is meaningful in that it reduces the power of disposal compared to the revocation of designation as a verifying institution. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant verification guidelines provision does not include a new content that is not prescribed in the upper statutes, and rather, it is more concrete to specify the scope or content of revocation of designation. Furthermore, the provision on business suspension under the instant verification guidelines is inconsistent with the purport of a provision on designation and revocation of designation as a verifying institution under the upper statutes or does not constitute a disposition that deviates from the scope that can be predicted based on the upper statutes.

E. Determination on whether a discretionary authority is deviates or abused

Considering the above-mentioned facts, and the following circumstances recognized by the overall purport of oral argument, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as unlawful by deviating from or abusing the discretionary power. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① As seen earlier, the Plaintiff omitted the problems applied by the greenhouse gas emission coefficient due to gross negligence while verifying the specifications in 2017 and the revised specifications in 2014 through 2016 of the instant business entity eligible for allocation, and accordingly, caused a serious error in the result of verification. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case for three months of business suspension corresponding to the first violation on the ground that it constitutes “where the details of the verification report and the discovered matters are omitted” under the verification guidelines [Attachment 2] 2.h. 1], and thus, it conforms to the disposition standards set forth in the said verification guidelines.

(2) The purpose of having the Plaintiff verify the statements prepared by controlled entities or business entities eligible for allocation under the Green Growth Act and the Emission Trading Act is to ensure the reliability in calculating greenhouse gas emissions through external organizations with objectivity and expertise so that the emissions trading system under the Green Growth Act and the Emission Trading Act can be operated effectively. The Plaintiff’s failure to verify errors in calculating the amount of emissions of the pertinent business entity eligible for allocation is a result of failing to faithfully perform verification duties, which is the basic role to be performed by the verification agency. The Plaintiff’s failure to verify errors in the statement prepared by the business entity eligible for allocation, has reached a considerable ratio exceeding the quantitative standard value of the importance of errors in relation to the amount of emissions of the instant business entity eligible for allocation due to the omission in the verification report. Therefore, in light of the above legislative purpose and legislative purpose, it is necessary to punish the Plaintiff’s violation and prevent

③ Article 36(2) of the Verification Directive provides that “Where the degree of violation is insignificant or there is any other special reason, the disposition may be mitigated.” However, even if the Plaintiff discovered any error in the existing specification and reported it to the Defendant in the process of verifying the monitoring plan around December 2018, the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff had the opportunity to rectify the error in the course of performing the duty of verifying the specifications prepared by the business entity eligible for allocation, found the error later and delayed. In light of such circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant ought to recognize the grounds for mitigation of the disposition of this case solely on the ground that the Plaintiff voluntarily reported the error.

④ Business disadvantages to be borne by the Plaintiff due to the instant disposition are calculated appropriately as greenhouse gas emissions, and it cannot be deemed that such disadvantages exceed the public interest that the State intends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the effective enforcement and settlement of the greenhouse gas emissions trading system.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall make a private exchange

Judges Park Nam-jin

Judges Lee Gyeong-soo

1) The term “gas (by-products) generated from raw materials or by-products thereof, which are required in the product production process.

2) The year designated as a new business entity eligible for allocation under Article 10 of the Emission Trading Act and Article 8(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act shall be the year 2017.

The application of the "Gas and Energy Target Management System" under the Color Growth Act is excluded, and B is a business entity eligible for allocation in the year of 2017, which is the first designated year.

The statements presented shall be submitted to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy by March 31, 2018, which is the agency responsible for each sector, pursuant to the Green Growth Act and subordinate statutes. B,

the Plaintiff’s duty to prepare a specification and verify it in 2017 is conducted in accordance with both emission trading statutes and Acts and subordinate statutes on green growth.

As such, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have any error in deeming the Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act to be the basis provision for the instant disposition.

3) The term “governmental consultative body on climate change” means the group of Governments on duty.

(iv) means by-product gas;

5) The term “national greenhouse gas management system” means a comprehensive greenhouse gas management system.

6) controlled entities that have to calculate their emissions, etc. under Section 2 (Tier 2) of the calculated class under Article 98 (Special Cases concerning Application of Discharge Coefficients) (Special Cases)

Only if the emission coefficient is not publicly notified in this Guidelines, the emission coefficient corresponding to 1 (Tier 1) may be applied.

7) According to the verification guidelines [Attachment 3] 5.c. 1 and 2, the quantitative criteria for the importance of the instant business entity eligible for allocation of which total emission volume is less than 500,000 CO2eq

The total volume of discharge is 5.0%, due to the application of erroneous emission coefficient in the statement of discharge from 2014 to 2017.

Since the omitted volume falls from 15.11% to 20.97% of the total volume discharged, it is recognized that there was a serious error.