logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.11.01 2018누77540
폐쇄명령처분 취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. On August 1, 2016, the Defendant against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 21, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) was a company established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling main products; (b) was a planned control area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”); and (c) made a report on installation of air emission facilities in a factory (dust 9.09 tons/year) on the land for a factory in Kimpo-si, which is a growth control area under the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”); and (d) operated the business.

B. On August 26, 2015, the Defendant requested the Gyeonggi-do Public Health and Environment Research Institute to conduct an inspection of the emission of specified hazardous substances in the Plaintiff’s factory, and on the part of the Gyeonggi-do Public Health and Environment Research Institute (hereinafter “C”) to collect samples of the emission facilities installed in the Plaintiff’s factory on August 26, 2015, and the Gyeonggi-do Public Health and Environment Research Institute (No. 2012-205 of the Ministry of Environment Notice) to conduct an inspection of the emission of specified hazardous substances in the method of testing under the “Fair Air Pollution Test (No. 2012-205 of the Ministry of Environment Notice)” and as a result, the Defendant discovered 1.3 cubic meters of mixed facilities in 1.3 cubic meters of the Plaintiff’s factory’s production facilities and 14.7 cubic meters of the main water disposal facilities (hereinafter “facilities”).

C. On August 1, 2016, the Defendant issued an order to close down the instant facilities (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the permission to install air emission facilities (ex officio 085 pms, which are specified hazardous air pollutants, at least 0.08 pms, determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment) pursuant to Articles 23(1), 38, and 84 of the former Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 1626, Jan. 15, 2019); Article 134(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Clean Air Conservation Act.

Only if specified hazardous air pollutants are emitted, permission for installation shall be obtained, and the installation of specified hazardous air pollutants emission facilities in planned control areas is prohibited.

arrow