1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the “related Acts and subordinate statutes” of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be replaced by the annexed Form 3; and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the court has repeatedly emphasized in the trial of the court of first instance shall be as stated in the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(

2. Details to be added; and

A. (1) The plaintiffs' assertion (1) Article 42 (1) of the Water Quality Ecosystem Act, a ground provision for the disposition of this case, provides that "business operators or operators of prevention facilities" may order the closure of "discharge facilities" or the suspension of operation for a period of not more than six months, in cases where the "operator of the business operators or operators of prevention facilities" discharges wastewater in excess of the permissible emission levels. Since individual business operators belonging to the plaintiff association, who operate the joint prevention facilities, only allow the introduction of wastewater into the joint prevention facilities through wastewater inflow facilities, and do not externally discharge wastewater, individual business operators cannot be deemed to be "business operators" who discharge wastewater as referred to in the above provision, and in the case of joint prevention facilities, the "discharge facilities" as referred to in the above provision, is deemed to mean "joint prevention facilities", and thus, it is only possible to impose penalty surcharges in lieu

Therefore, under a different premise, the instant disposition against the remaining plaintiffs, who are individual business entities belonging to the Plaintiff Union, is unlawful as against a person who is not subject to disposition.

(2) The reason for exceeding the permissible emission level as a result of the inspection of the pollution level of samples is that the remaining Cheong has discharged high density pollutants at the time of November 26, 2014, when the water collection, which served as the basis for the disposition of the instant case, was conducted by the Southern National Assembly. As such, even though the Defendant was mainly responsible for pollution to the South National Assembly, such circumstances are observed.