The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 41(1)2(a) of the former Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 11979, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter “Water Quality Ecosystem Conservation Act”) provides for the imposition and collection of excess discharge dues on business operators discharging water pollutants in excess of the permissible discharge levels in order to prevent or reduce water pollution and damage to aquatic ecosystems caused by water pollutants, and matters necessary for the calculation methods and calculation standards thereof shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Articles 45(1) and 49(2) [Attachment Table 16] subparagraph 1(a) and (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25045, Dec. 30, 2013) upon delegation set the criteria for the coefficient of the frequency of violations, which is one of the elements for calculating excess discharge dues, and “number of violations” shall be the frequency of violations in cases where orders for improvement, suspension of operation, suspension of use, revocation of permission, or closure (hereinafter referred to as “improvement order, etc.”) are issued by discharging water pollutants subject to the imposition of excess discharge dues in excess of the permissible emission levels for each place of business, but shall be the number of violations in the last two years on the basis of the date of the violation that is the cause of the imposition of dues. On the other hand, where two or more violations are ordered, one order for improvement is issued, but the date of

In the event that there are the system contents of the relevant regulations and the emission power of pollutants, etc., the purpose of the imposition coefficient system of the frequency of violations to apply the imposition rate of the charges.