(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.8.18.선고 2015구합5236 판결

A. On August 2012, A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) filed an application with the Defendant for a permit for the development of spring water in order to carry on drinking spring water manufacturing business with the spring water collected by installing three corrections of intakes (hereinafter referred to as “water intakes in this case”) in Gangwon-gun B. On December 12, 2012, the Defendant granted a permit for the development of spring water on the condition that the Defendant shall submit a written environmental impact survey to A within two years.

B. On December 6, 2014, A filed an application for permission for the development of spring water with the environmental impact investigation report prepared by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) attached to the Defendant, and the Defendant requested the head of the original regional office to conduct a technical examination of the instant survey report.

C. The head of the original regional environment office requested C to supplement the survey document of this case after hearing the opinions of experts, and C submitted a supplement to the survey document of this case to the head of the original regional environment office around June 2015, and on July 23, 2015 based on the survey document and supplement document of this case, the head of the original regional environment office notified C of the results of the environmental impact assessment as follows, including that the daily water intake limit of the water intake date of this case is 1,084m/day (No. 369mi/day, No. 2635m/day, No. 380mi/day).

In the event that an excess of 00 water quality standards or a sudden change in water level is discovered as a result of the environmental impact examination, the collection of the water shall be immediately suspended, the cause thereof shall be examined, and measures shall be formulated and implemented.In the event that the groundwater level is lowered due to continuous water intake and damage to neighboring areas occurs, the collection of the water shall be immediately suspended and separate measures shall be formulated and implemented. The surveillance unit shall install and operate a continuous automatic measuring instrument that can measure and record the water level of raw water, electric intensity, temperature, hydrogen ion concentration, etc., and shall take measures such as recording the results of the observation in a manual in the event of a failure of the device. It is necessary to continuously monitor the occurrence of ground subsidence in the future by indicating a certain area near the 00 water intake.

D. On July 31, 2015, the Defendant rendered permission for the development of spring water for the water intake of this case to A (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

A person shall be appointed.

E. The Plaintiffs are those who use groundwater drawn up through pipes while living in Gangwon-gun D D, Gangwon-do, and use it as raw water, agricultural water, and livestock water.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 10, 11, and 12 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Since there exist the following defects in the investigation report of this case, the disposition of this case constitutes "permission for development by fraudulent or illegal means", and there is an error of law corresponding to the necessary grounds for revocation as stipulated in Article 12-2 (1) of the Drinking Water Management Act, or where there is considerable potential source of pollution, such as livestock farms and remedy areas, and where the water intake station near the water intake station of this case is considerably unable to develop spring water, and the water collection is made in proportion to the volume of sobed volume (1,084m2/day) due to a lack of groundwater, it would be difficult for the existing residents to live in a normal life due to the lack of groundwater and endanger the right of survival, and there is an error of law that deviates from and abused discretionary power contrary to the principle of

(i) the omission of groundwater volume in the water-flow station;

In the investigation of this case, it is written that the volume of groundwater in the water collection station is 1,750m/day (750m/day at 31 place for living water, 1,050m/day at 46 places for agricultural water) in total of 77 water supply in total.

However, the content of the above investigation was omitted from 37 pipes in the water basin, and the sum of the water intake plan of the omitted pipes is 846m/day. 1)

(ii) mistake in calculating exploitable volume;

① In relation to the amount of rainfall, the instant survey was submitted on or around December 2014, but the instant survey was submitted on or around June 2015, and the instant survey was submitted on or around June 2015, and there was a situation in which the annual amount of rainfall due to the tear Drought in 2014 was not only half of the average amount of lecture over the last ten years since it was about 2013, and thus, the amount of exploitable volume should be calculated by reflecting the strong amount in 2014 at the time of the instant survey, despite the fact that it was necessary to calculate the amount of exploitable volume.

② With respect to the development rate of groundwater, the instant survey shall apply the rate of cultivation (average 14.44%) with respect to droughts across the country as well as with a view to being fluorously as to the development rate of groundwater. The instant survey shall apply the growth rate on the basis of droughts in ten-year frequency as it reduces the growth rate on the ground that the rainfall is low.

③ With respect to the application of the safety rate, the instant survey shall apply 70% to the average rainfall in the last 10 years in calculating the exploitable volume, but, considering the maximum conditions of the drought, 70% to the minimum rainfall in the last 10 years.

(iii)the omission of sericultural pollution sources;

In the investigation report of this case, there are defects in omitting sources of diving pollution, such as 19-20 livestock penss (500 heads of cattle breedings), burial areas in the remedy station, and the use of snow chemicals.

(b) Relevant statutes;

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

If a disposition is taken with respect to a project subject to an environmental impact assessment under the relevant Acts, the court should first consider whether the procedure for the environmental impact assessment under the relevant Acts has been properly implemented, and if the procedure for the environmental impact assessment has been implemented properly, whether the contents of the environmental impact assessment are incomplete or not. If the contents of the environmental impact assessment are inadequate, the degree of failure is so that the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system could not be achieved, and if the degree of failure does not reach the degree that the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system can not be achieved, the determination of the legality of the relevant disposition should be made based on the results of the review of whether there was a deviation or abuse of discretionary power from the relevant disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12073, Dec. 9, 2004).

2) Whether the instant survey document was defective

A) Whether the groundwater volume was omitted in the water collection station

According to Gap evidence Nos. 11, 24, 26, and Eul evidence No. 12, based on the data of the national groundwater information center, the fact that the daily volume of groundwater used in the house basin is 1,800/day (750/day at 31 place for living water, 1,050/day at 46 places for agricultural water, and 1,050 mi/day) can be acknowledged in the survey of this case based on the data of the national groundwater information center.

However, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 37 and Eul evidence Nos. 17 and 18 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it can be recognized that the fact of omission of 37 square meters in the aggregate water collection station and 846 square meters in the aggregate water collection plan in accordance with the current status of groundwater in the national groundwater information center, which is used as data for the survey of this case, was carried out by the survey of this case, and that the groundwater quantity in the water collection station is 2,646m/day (1,80m/day + 846m/day).

[On the other hand, according to the current status of D groundwater (No. 18) of the Crossing-gun Office, there is 128 irrigation places within the water basin around August 2016, and there is a total of 3,023 cubic meters of water intake, which can be recognized as the fact that the water intake plan is 3,023 cubic meters/day, which was conducted after the point of time of the instant disposal. Thus, in calculating the water volume, the data of the National Groundwater Information Center shall be based on the data of the

In addition, even if the survey document of this case was partially omitted, the defendant asserts that there is no defect since the volume of 1,800 meters/day of groundwater used in the survey document of this case exceeds 350.7 meters/day of the volume of groundwater used in accordance with the calculation guidelines of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. However, the calculation guidelines of the volume of groundwater used in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (No. 19 evidence) are fit when there is no material to verify the actual amount of groundwater used, and it is difficult to accept that only the rate of / day of 350.7 meters of the volume of groundwater used in the calculation guidelines of the volume of groundwater used in the above calculation guidelines as alleged by the defendant is applied to the livestock farmers located in the dry basin, and that the calculation guidelines of groundwater used in the livestock industry are not applied

B) Whether the calculation of exploitable volume was erroneous

(1) Parts of lectures

In accordance with the evidence Nos. 11 and 34, the investigation period of the instant survey document is from January 1, 2013 to December 2014, and in calculating the exploitable volume, from 2004 to 2013, applying the average lecture volume of 1,50.9mm, the minimum lecture volume of 1,140.4mm by applying the lecture volume for 10 years from 2004 to 2013. However, the fact that the supplementary statement to the instant survey document was submitted on June 6, 2015 and the rainfall quantity measured by the Hongcheon Observation Station in 2014, which was issued on July 31, 2015, was 703.5mm.

In addition to attached Table 1 of Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Management of Drinking Water Act, "the volume of groundwater frighting shall be calculated on the basis of the average amount of rainfalls for the last ten years from the gyst day of the lighting." In light of the investigation period of the sand in this case, it is difficult to deem that the river quantity has been applied for ten years from 2004 to 2013 is erroneous (Provided, That such circumstances must be considered in determining deviation and abuse of discretionary authority).

(2) Part of groundwater content rate.

The plaintiff asserts that the rate of the volume of the ground water is to be applied to the rate of the volume of the ground water generated by a low amount of the rainfall, so the increase in the volume of the ground water generated by a low amount of the rainfall, so that the rate of the volume of the ground water generated by the local sewage should be applied to the rate of the volume of the ground water generated by a 10-year frequency. However, there

[On the other hand, as an analysis by statistical data, in addition to the nationwide average groundwater development rate of 14.44%, the survey of this case presents as an analysis by the amount of loss the value calculated by applying each of the development rate of 12.2% and the development rate of 13.43% by regional development coefficient as an analysis by the amount of loss.]

(3) Part concerning the application of safety rates

In the investigation report of this case, the safety rate was not applied when calculating the exploitable volume, and according to the review opinion that property should be determined in consideration of the safety rate when calculating the exploitable volume, the supplementary report of this case calculated by multiplying the development volume of groundwater calculated based on the average 10 years by 70% safety rate. However, it can be acknowledged that the safety rate was not applied to the development volume of local sewage calculated based on the minimum 10 years minimum river volume.

According to Article 7 [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Management of Drinking Water Act, the volume of groundwater franchising shall be calculated based on the average amount of 10 years from the date of the investigation." Thus, it is difficult to view that there was an error in the survey of this case applying the safety rate of 70% only to the amount of groundwater franchising calculated based on the average amount of 10 years of the survey.

C) Whether the source of sericultural pollution was omitted

According to Gap evidence Nos. 11, 14, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 12, 21, 23, and 24 and the whole pleadings, it can be acknowledged that 19 livestock pens were omitted in the collected water basin, 3 small-scale diversary livestock were omitted, and that the use of large-scale diversary livestock burial sites and snow removal agents located near the boundary of the collected water basin was not considered as potential sources of pollution.

However, according to the above evidence, the omitted livestock burial facilities are installed at 16 places except three 19 places, and the purification facilities are found to have been installed at 10 places, and the contamination by the livestock shed is not confirmed as a result of the analysis of water quality near the water intake of this case and the soil inspection of soil and the water quality inspection of the river near the water intake of this case, which is the representative source by the livestock shed, and the contamination by the livestock shed is found not to have been caused by the livestock shed. The water contamination of the small scale livestock burial facilities is not existing in the capture section where the removal of pollutants is likely to occur, and the water pollution is not verified as a result of the analysis of water quality, the soil contamination is classified as the burial site of livestock located near the water intake station of this case for three years, which is not likely to cause environmental pollution.

In full view of these circumstances, it is difficult to view that the survey document of this case contains a ground for illegality of the disposal of this case because it is difficult to see that the disposal of this case is changed because it is not changed to the disposal of this case, even if some of the locked source was omitted, it was confirmed that there was no groundwater pollution due to such omission.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3) Determination as to the illegality of the instant disposition

A) As seen earlier, the fact that some false entries are found in the investigation document of this case may be acknowledged. However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to deem that A intentionally entered the investigation document of this case in a false or other unlawful manner and obtained permission. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is illegal for the necessary grounds for revocation under Article 12-2(1) of the Drinking Water Management Act is not accepted.

B) Next, in light of the following circumstances as to whether the instant disposition was erroneous in deviation from or abuse of discretionary power, the facts acknowledged earlier, and the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 12, 20 through 30, and 34 and the overall purport of oral arguments, etc., it is deemed that there were insufficient measures to take appropriate measures for the instant disposition in cases where damage has occurred to the main area due to the development of spring water, such as droughts or reed water, or where damage has occurred to the main area due to the development of spring water.

① As seen earlier, it is difficult to view that applying the amount of rainfall for 10 years from 204 to 2013 from the investigation report of this case is erroneous. However, considering the fact that the Defendant’s act of conducting the development of spring water is not bound by the environmental impact investigation report, but should evaluate the appropriateness of the development of spring water based thereon. As long as the amount of rainfall of 703.5mm, which is the minimum amount of 1,140.4mm applied by the investigation report of this case prior to the disposition of this case, was 60% of the minimum of 1,140.4mm applied by the investigation report of this case, it is reasonable to reflect it in the determination of whether to grant permission (in 2015, the amount was 740mm). In examining the investigation report of this case, it is reasonable to consider the fact that “The examination opinion that the amount of rainfall for 2014 seriously lowers the amount of rainfall for 2014, it is reasonable to determine the amount of rainfall applied to the development and abuse of authority of this case.

② As seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the safety rate of 70% is erroneous to apply only to the bring volume calculated on the basis of the average 10-year river volume in the instant survey report. However, in calculating the amount of exploitable groundwater, safety rate is different depending on the structure, such as rocks, soils, crushings, and base rocks, and making it difficult to compute the amount of exploitable groundwater as accurate because it is difficult to accurately reveal their structure. The reason why considering the minimum 10-year river volume in calculating the amount of exploitable groundwater is likely to cause droughts. In light of the different purpose, it is necessary to consider not only the bring volume of groundwater calculated on the basis of the average 10-year river volume in determining the amount of exploitable groundwater, but also the safe rate of exploitable volume of groundwater calculated on the basis of the minimum 10-year river volume in the recent 10-year river volume.

③ As above, the amount of exploitable groundwater calculated on the basis of the average river quantity and the minimum river quantity for ten (10) years is as follows. If the amount of exploitable groundwater is excluded from the 2,646m/day of the river capacity in the water collection basin recognized earlier, the remaining amount of exploitable groundwater exceeds the amount of exploitable groundwater permitted for the disposition of this case, but if the amount of exploitable groundwater permitted on the basis of the maximum river quantity is based on the disposal of this case, the remaining amount of exploitable groundwater permitted on the disposition of this case exceeds the remaining amount of exploitable groundwater.

(unit: Size/day)

A person shall be appointed.

④ In the foregoing circumstances, in the technical examination of the instant survey report, the amount of groundwater flow, unlike the actual amount of rainfall, may be affected by the wind season, unlike October and November, which were selected as a water source for calculating the amount of water to be collected at the time of water generation. In the upper region of the water intake, there is a very large difference between the water source and the water source. Individual review is necessary for the water source and the water source and the water source. In full view of the fact that there was an opinion to the effect that a sufficient review is necessary for the water source and the water source to verify the surrounding impact of the water source upon water generation at the time of water generation. Considering the fact that there was an opinion that the water source permitted by the instant disposition is within the appropriate scope in accordance with the relevant regulations, it is necessary to add a condition that the water intake quantity can be appropriately restricted at the time when groundwater development quantity, such as droughts, is still insufficient.

(5) In addition, water intake from A applied for the provisional permission for the development of spring water of this case to the water intake well, it is difficult for some of the residents in the vicinity of the water intake well of the instant water intake well to accurately understand the structure of the water intake well, such as the water reservoir, the water reservoir in the water intake basin, and the water distribution in the vicinity is in the form of a dry-scale where the water flow is not existing during all periods except flood (23 pages of the survey document of this case). The neighboring residents are using groundwater for daily use, agricultural water, and livestock water, the development depth of the irrigation well used by the residents causing damage within 2 to 120 meters, and the water intake level is within 2 to 20 meters, and the water intake level actually used by the residents in the drought due to the outbreak of 2014 and 2015, and it is difficult for them to accurately understand the current structure of the surrounding area, such as the water intake level, the water intake level is likely to have an effect on the water intake in the first one day.

1. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant imposed a condition of permission that “in the event a sudden change, etc. in water level is found, the water level should be immediately suspended, and countermeasures should be established and implemented, if damage to surrounding areas occurs as the water level was lowered with continuous water intake.” However, if damage to surrounding areas due to the water level degradation of the above condition of permission occurs, the meaning of “a sudden change in water level” and “in the face of damage to the surrounding areas due to the water level degradation,” the Defendant’s disposal of the instant case can not be a specific and substantial regulatory standard.

7) The instant disposition is difficult to deem that granting permission to a private company for the development of spring water is related to the public interest. However, obtaining profits from the instant disposition is A that obtained permission and residents in the surrounding area will only put about the risk of damage caused by the instant disposition, and G A is easy to predict the occurrence of damage caused by the water intake through the surveillance well, while it is difficult for the residents in the surrounding area to predict the occurrence of damage due to the occurrence of water shortage, such as it is difficult for the residents in the surrounding area to grasp the occurrence of damage due to the occurrence of water shortage. In light of the above, it is reasonable for A to undertake efforts and expenses to predict the occurrence of damage to the surrounding area due to the development of spring water and to establish specific and objective measures.

However, according to the above abstract conditions of permission imposed on the instant disposition, even if damage is anticipated to occur to the neighboring area, it is only possible to expect the suspension of water intake or water intake in good faith within the scope of the volume of water intake permitted A, and it is unreasonable to monitor whether the neighboring area residents have continuously suffered damage and demand A to suspend water intake or to reduce water intake.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, and this decision is delivered with the decision of the court.

Judges

(Presiding Judge)

Mashee

United Kingdom of America

Note tin

1) On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff’s final reorganization of the argument regarding the omission is governed by the preparatory documents dated May 2, 2017.

Site of separate sheet

Attached Table 1

List of Plaintiffs

5. I

8. L.

9. M;

10. N (Withdrawal of action on January 20, 2017)

11. 0

12. P;

13. Q.

14. R:

15. S;

16. Telecommunication

17. U;

18. V

19.W

20. X

21. Y

22. Z;

23. AA

24. AB

25. AC

26. AD;

27. AE;

28. AF

29. AG

30. AH;

Attached Table 2

Relevant statutes

/ Drinking Water Management Act

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Act is to contribute to improving national health by rationally managing the quality and hygiene of drinking water.

Article 3 (Definitions)

The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

2. The term " spring water" means a person who continues to maintain safety of water quality, such as groundwater or spring water, in rocks-to-water strata;

The term "natural water" means raw water to be used for the purpose of drinking water in a natural state.

3. The term "drinking spring water" means processed water to make spring water potable by means of physical treatment, etc.;

means.

Article 8-3 (Designation of Spring Water Preservation Areas)

(1) In order to preserve the quality of spring water, a Mayor/Do Governor may designate any of the following areas or areas adjacent thereto as a spring water preservation area (hereinafter referred to as " spring water preservation area"):

1. Spring water which contains a large number of non-organic substances beneficial to human bodies and thus has high usefulness as raw water for drinking spring water;

Area in reserve;

2. An area with abundant spring water quantity;

3. Other areas prescribed by Presidential Decree as necessary for preserving the quality of spring water.

Article 8-5 (Prohibited Activities in Spring Water Preservation Areas)

No one shall engage in any of the following activities in a spring water preservation area: Provided, That the foregoing shall not apply where facilities prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, which are incidental to drinking spring water manufacturing facilities and their subsidiary facilities, are installed with permission from the competent Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment:

1. Burial of the carcasses of livestock under the main sentence of Article 22 (2) of the Act on the Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases;

2. Installation of waste disposal facilities under subparagraph 8 of Article 2 of the Wastes Control Act;

3. Installation of specific facilities subject to the control of soil contamination under subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the Soil Environment Conservation Act;

4. Installation of wastewater discharge facilities under subparagraph 10 of Article 2 of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act;

5. Public sewage treatment plants under subparagraph 9 of Article 2 of the Sewerage Act or excreta treatment plants under subparagraph 10 of the same Article;

Installation of facilities

6. Waste-generating facilities under subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, or Article 8 of the same Act;

Installation of disposal facilities under the subparagraph;

7. Installation of other contamination-causing facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 9 (Permission, etc. to Develop Spring Water or Saline Groundwater)

(1) Any person who intends to develop spring water or saline groundwater (hereinafter referred to as " spring water, etc.") above the scale prescribed by Presidential Decree shall obtain permission from the competent Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment.

Article 10 (Provisional Permission to Develop Spring Water, etc.)

(1) Before a Mayor/Do Governor grants permission to develop spring water, etc. pursuant to Article 9, he/she may grant provisional permission to a person who intends to develop spring water, etc. subject to an environmental impact survey under Article 13 (1) on condition that he/she conduct an environmental impact survey and submit documents thereon (hereinafter referred to as "survey documents") within the period prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry

(2) If a person who has obtained provisional permission pursuant to paragraph (1) fails to produce a survey document within the period without any justifiable ground, the Mayor/Do Governor shall revoke such provisional permission.

Article 11 (Restrictions, etc. on Permission to Develop Spring Water, etc.)

(1) Where the Mayor/Do Governor deems, as a result of the environmental impact examination under Article 18, that it is likely to affect the development of resources or the quality, etc. of surface of other public groundwater, he/she may not grant permission for the development of spring water, etc.

(2) When a Mayor/Do Governor grants permission to develop spring water, etc. pursuant to Article 9, he/she may impose necessary conditions, such as restricting the volume of daily water intake according to the results of examination of a survey document conducted under Article 18.

Article 12 (Term of Validity of Permission to Develop Spring Water, etc.)

(1) The term of validity of permission to develop spring water, etc. under Article 9 shall be five years.

(2) The Mayor/Do Governor may grant permission for extension of the term of validity to a person who has obtained permission for development of spring water, etc. In such cases, each extension period shall be five years.

Article 12-2 (Revocation of Permission to Develop Spring Water, etc.)

(1) Where a person who has obtained permission to develop spring water, etc. pursuant to Article 9 obtains permission by fraudulent or other illegal means or obtains an extension of the term of validity of permission to develop spring water, etc., the relevant Mayor/Do Governor shall revoke such permission.

Article 13 (Environmental Impact Survey)

(1) Any person who intends to conduct business of manufacturing drinking spring water, etc. among those who intend to obtain permission to develop spring water, etc. pursuant to Article 9, and any other person who intends to develop spring water, etc., the daily water intake capacity of which is the scale which meets the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree, shall conduct an environmental impact investigation on a plan which may reduce the effects caused by the development of spring water on the surrounding environment and harmful impacts caused by the surrounding environment, and shall prepare a survey document and submit it to the Mayor/Do Governor when applying for permission

(2) Items and methods of environmental impact surveys, standards for evaluation, preparation of a survey document and other necessary matters under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment.

Article 14 (Vicarious Execution of Environmental Impact Survey)

Any person who intends to develop spring water, etc. subject to an environmental impact survey under Article 13 (1) among those who intend to obtain permission to develop spring water, etc. pursuant to Article 9 shall have an agent for the environmental impact survey registered under Article 15 (hereinafter referred to as "survey agent") conduct an environmental impact survey on his/her behalf when preparing a survey document.

Article 14-2 (Matters to be Observed for Environmental Impact Survey)

(1) A survey agent shall preserve the survey document and the data to form the basis of preparation of the survey document determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment for a period prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment (hereafter referred to as "maintenance period" in this Article): Provided, That the same shall not apply where the survey document is prepared in the form of electronic document and is disclosed for a preservation period through an information and communications network,

(2) A survey agent shall observe the following matters:

1. He/she shall not prepare any survey document reproducing the content of other survey document;

2. He/she shall not prepare a false or inadequate survey document and data, based on which the survey document is prepared;

(3) Detailed standards for preparation of false or inadequate statements under paragraph (2) 2 shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment.

Article 18 (Environmental Impact Examination)

(1) The Mayor/Do Governor shall send a survey document submitted pursuant to Article 13 (1) to the Minister of Environment to undergo a technical examination.

(2) In conducting the technical examination of the survey document under paragraph (1), the Minister of Environment may hear opinions of an expert, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

【Enforcement Decree of the Drinking Water Management Act

Article 2-2 (Areas Subject to Designation of Spring Water Preservation Areas)

"Areas prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 8-3 (1) 3 of the Act means the areas of sea corresponding to any of the following:

1. An area where a drinking spring water intake is or is scheduled to be installed;

2. Omission of spring water quality due to discharge of pollutants, etc. in consideration of the utilization of neighboring land.

Area with a potential risk

Article 3 (Persons Eligible for Permission to Develop Spring Water or Saline Groundwater)

(1) "Person who intends to develop spring water or saline groundwater exceeding the scale prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 9 (1) of the Act means any of the following persons:

1. Manufacturing drinking spring water or drinking saline groundwater (hereinafter referred to as "drinking spring water, etc.") pursuant to Article 21 (1) of the Act;

A person who intends to engage in business (including a person who uses manufacturing facilities for drinking spring water, etc. to manufacture carbon-free water);

(2)

2. Spring water, etc. with water-bearing capacity of 300 tons or more per day (a part of raw water is used as raw material of beverages, alcoholic beverages, etc.).

2. A person who intends to develop spring water, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "other spring water").

Enforcement Regulations of Drinking Water Management Act

Article 3 (Permission for Developing Spring Water, etc.)

(1) A person who intends to obtain permission for development or alteration of spring water or saline groundwater (hereinafter referred to as " spring water, etc.") pursuant to Article 9 of the Act shall submit an application for permission for development or alteration of spring water or saline groundwater (including electronic documents) in attached Form 2 to the Mayor/Do Governor within the period specified in Article 4 (1) along with a document issued by him/her (hereinafter referred to as "survey document") within the environmental impact survey under Article 13 (1) of the Act.

(2) Where a survey document submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) needs to be supplemented, such as the omission of the items for investigation under attached Table 1, the Mayor/Do Governor may request the applicant to supplement the survey document within a fixed period not exceeding six months: Provided, That where the new applicant requests an extension of the period for supplementation, the Mayor/Do Governor may extend the period only once by up to three months.

(3) Where a survey document submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) falls under any of the following cases, a Mayor/Do Governor may return an application for permission:

1. Where he/she fails to supplement a survey document within the period specified in paragraph (2) without good cause;

2. Where an agent for the environmental impact investigation fails to have the agent prepare a survey document in violation of Article 14 of the Act;

(4) Upon receipt of an application for permission under paragraph (1), a Mayor/Do Governor shall issue a permit to develop saline groundwater in attached Form 3 after comprehensively reviewing the opinions, etc. on technical examinations under Article 18 of the Act.

Article 4 (Provisional Permission on Development of Spring Water, etc.)

(1) "Period prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment" in Article 10 (1) of the Act means two years from the date of obtaining provisional permission: Provided, That in any of the following cases, a Mayor/Do Governor may extend such period only once by up to six months:

1. Where it is impossible to conduct an environmental impact investigation due to a natural disaster or other accidents;

2. An agent for environmental impact investigation that conducts environmental impact surveys on the development of the relevant spring water, etc.;

in the event of failure to carry out the

(2) A person who intends to obtain provisional permission for the development of spring water, etc. under Article 10 (1) of the Act shall submit an application for provisional permission for the development of spring water, etc. (including electronic documents) in attached Form 4 to the Mayor/Do Governor, along with the following documents (including electronic documents):

1. Business plan;

2. Plans for installing water pollution prevention facilities;

3. Restoration plan;

4. Documents evidencing the ownership of, or the right to use, and the right to benefit from land;

(3) Upon receipt of an application for provisional permission under paragraph (2), a Mayor/Do Governor shall issue a provisional permission for the development of saline groundwater in attached Form 5 after examining the project plan, whether a plan for the installation of pollution prevention facilities, etc. are appropriate.

Article 5 (Technical Review of Survey Reports)

(1) Upon receipt of a written investigation under Article 3 (1), the Mayor/Do Governor shall request the head of a basin environmental office or the head of a regional environmental office (hereinafter referred to as "head of a regional environmental office") to conduct a technical examination under Article 18 of the Act

(2) Upon receipt of a request for technical examination pursuant to paragraph (1), the head of a regional environmental agency shall prepare an examination opinion in accordance with the Form 5-2 of each land within 60 days and notify the relevant Mayor/Do Governor thereof. In such cases, the period required for supplementation of a survey document shall not

Article 7 (Environmental Impact Survey)

The items of investigation, methods of investigation, criteria for evaluation, preparation of a survey document, etc. under Article 13 of the Act shall be as specified in attached Table 1: Provided, That if there is any method of reliability above the same level as the method of investigation under attached Table 1, such method may be used.

[Attachment 1] Items, etc. of the Environmental Impact Survey (related to Article 7)

1. Development of spring water;

(a) In cases of an initial application for permission:

Repair Geological

Raw-water, raw-water

United States of America

Metropolitan area

Area within the impact range;

Matters

For purposes of

(A)

(4)