1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. As to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2017.

1. The reasons why this part of the disposition is stated are as follows: (a) the relevant part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2, No. 4 to No. 3) is the same; and (b) thus, this part of the reasons is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion 1) The "discharge of pollutants emitted from emission facilities with air to lower the pollution level" under the latter part of Article 31 (1) 1 of the Clean Air Conservation Act (hereinafter "the provision of this case") requires awareness and intent to lower the pollution level. The act of this case alleged by the defendant cannot be deemed to be aimed at lowering the pollution level, and it does not constitute a violation of the provision of this case, since it does not discharge pollutants mixed with air.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful because there is no ground for disposition.

B) The Defendant had been aware of the fact that the installation of the instant sudden facilities was operated several times through the guidance and inspection, but it did not point out or point out such fact, and thus, it is unlawful to deem the installation of the instant sudden facilities as the grounds for disposition contrary to the principle of trust and protection, which is against the principle of trust and protection.

2) The gist of the Defendant’s assertion A) In the instant provision, the phrase “the act of lowering the contamination level” is merely a concrete act of “the act of discharging pollutants discharged from emission facilities by mixing with air,” and the phrase “the purpose of lowering the contamination level” is not required to fall under the provisions of the instant case.

Even if “the purpose of lowering the contamination level” is required, the Plaintiff’s pollution level is assessed in light of the content of the act of causing the instant case.