1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Attached Table 1 No. 1, 2012, which the defendant against the plaintiff on October 4, 2012.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. As follows, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is not more than the "illegality in the application of the imposition coefficient of the frequency of violation (e) No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance (e)" (the judgment of the court of first instance differs from the judgment as to whether the frequency of violation is illegal).

(E) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to apply the coefficient corresponding to the Class 1 workplace based on the association of this case where the joint prevention facilities of this case are operated. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) Where a business operator installs joint prevention facilities to jointly treat water pollutants, each business operator is deemed to install prevention facilities for the relevant water pollutants in each place of business, and thus, the business operator is deemed to allow the installation of prevention facilities for water pollutants in each place of business, so that the concentration of discharged water and discharged water pollutants can be used as the basis for calculating the discharge charges of each place of business.

(2) Article 35 (6) of the Water Quality Conservation Act delegates matters necessary for the installation and operation of joint prevention facilities to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, and the proviso to Article 45 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act prescribes that the payment of discharge dues related to the operation and management of joint prevention facilities shall be determined in advance by each business operator, and Article 35 (1) 6 of the same Act provides that the representative of the joint prevention facilities shall not be able to measure the concentration of discharged water and water pollutants at each place of business at the time of the