(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.3.30. 선고 2014구합74527 판결

Among the national emission permits allocation plans publicly announced by the Defendant on September 16, 2014, the national greenhouse gas emission prospects (BAU) and reduction targets against the Plaintiff, the total emission quantity of 1,686,549,412 KU parts, the reserve emission permits amounting to 88,821,664 KU parts, and the allocation by type of business 20,259,799 shall be revoked, respectively.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 17, 2009, the Government decided to reduce the total nationwide greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 by 30% in preparation for the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions (hereinafter referred to as “BAU2”) and enacted the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth (hereinafter referred to as the “Green Growth Act”) on January 13, 2010.

B. On April 14, 2010, the Government announced the former Guidelines on the Management, etc. of Greenhouse Gases and Energy (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 2016-255, Dec. 30, 2016) in accordance with Article 42(5) of the Green Growth Act and Article 26(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27180, May 24, 2016) to introduce the target management system of greenhouse gases and energy, while introducing the target management system of greenhouse gases and energy in excess of a certain standard quantity, pursuant to Article 29 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24270, Dec. 27, 2012).

(c) The Government has set and managed targets for reduction of greenhouse gases, energy conservation, and energy utilization efficiency for each controlled entity from 2012, subject to the period of demonstration operation without setting the goal in 2011 in accordance with the above target management system.

D. On May 14, 2012, the Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits (hereinafter “Emission Trading Act”) was enacted to introduce a system on the allocation and trading of permissible greenhouse gas emissions allocated to an individual business entity producing greenhouse gases within the scope of total permissible greenhouse gas emissions (hereinafter “emission Trading System”) for the purpose of effectively accomplishing targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under Article 42(1)1 of the Green Growth Act by using market function.

E. On January 28, 2014, pursuant to Article 4 of the Emission Trading Act, the Government established the first commitment period (hereinafter referred to as the "the instant commitment period") for three years from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017. Around January 28, 2014, the Government calculated the Round Road Map (hereinafter referred to as the "Round Road Map") to achieve national greenhouse gas reduction targets under Article 42 of the Green Growth Act. In the instant basic plan and road map, the Government calculated the State's BU as one of the 76.1 million tons from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017, and calculated the first commitment period (hereinafter referred to as the "the pertinent commitment period") for three years from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017.

F. On September 12, 2014, the Minister of Environment designated and publicly announced a business entity eligible for allocation of emission permits under Article 8 of the Emission Trading Act (hereinafter “business entity eligible for allocation”) as a business entity eligible for allocation of non-ferrous metal industry under Article 2014-162, and designated the Plaintiff as a business entity eligible for allocation of non-ferrous metal industry.

G. Article 5(1) of the Emission Trading Act provides that the Government shall establish a national emission permits allocation plan, including certain matters, for each commitment period, by no later than six months prior to the beginning of each planning period in order to effectively achieve national greenhouse gas reduction targets, matters regarding total emission allowances for greenhouse gases established by considering national greenhouse gas reduction targets (Article 1); matters regarding the pertinent commitment period and implementation years based on total emission allowances (Article 2); matters regarding the sector and type of business eligible for allocation of emission permits (Article 3); guidelines for allocation of emission permits by sector and type of business (Article 4); and matters regarding standards for reserve emission permits and allocation standards under Article 18 (Article 9). The Minister of Environment announced the allocation of emission permits by sector and type of business (Article 2014-541 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Permits (Article 271 of May 24, 2016); the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Allocation and Trading of Emission Permits (Article 3).

H. The instant emission permit allocation plan includes the following:

1) (AAU) During the first plan period (2015 to 2017), the State’s greenhouse gas emissions are expected to continuously increase (i.e., annual average of 1.9% compared to the preceding year; hereinafter referred to as “instant emission outlook”).

National greenhouse gas outlook (ND) each year.

A person shall be appointed.

(ii) shall be calculated by applying reduction rates under national reduction targets.

- The target emission quantity after reduction has been converted to a continuous reduction trend (hereinafter referred to as "the target portion of reduction in this case") as a result of a significant increase in the reduction rate since 2015; 3 national maternity gas reduction targets in the year

A person shall be appointed.

3) The total amount of emission permits for the first commitment period and the allocation of emission permits by sector and by business type (hereinafter referred to as "total amount of emission permits" 1,686,549,412, the portion of KU, reserve emission permits 88,821,664, the portion of KAU allocated by business type 20,259,79, and "the total amount of emission permits of this case", "the reserve portion of the emission permits of this case", and "the allocation of emission permits of this case by business type", including the emission outlook and reduction target portion of the emission permits of this case.

A person shall be appointed.

I. Upon the amendment of Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act by Presidential Decree No. 27181 on May 24, 2016, the subject who establishes the emission permits allocation plan was changed to the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the Minister of Environment and the defendant") (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 21, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Attached statements, such as related Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. Defendant’s defense

An administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to an act of an administrative agency’s public law, which is directly related to the duty of rights of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations under Acts and subordinate statutes with respect to a specific matter, or giving rise to other legal effects, and an act which does not directly cause legal changes in the legal status of the other party or other related persons,

The main contents of the plan are that the allocation plan of emission permits in this case is established and announced under Articles 2 and 5 of the Emission Trading Act, and its main contents are "the sectors and types of business subject to the allocation of emission permits, total quantity of emission permits, allocation by business type, allocation standards for company, reserve emission permits, offset standards, etc.", and plans are formulated to effectively achieve national greenhouse gas reduction targets based on the allocation plan in this case, designation of business entities eligible for allocation, allocation of emission permits, etc. based on the allocation plan in this case, and Article 38 of the Act on Trading of Emission Permits provides for the object of objection, but does not include the allocation plan. The allocation plan in this case only serves as the basis for the designation of business entities eligible for allocation or allocation of emission permits, not directly changing the legal status of the plaintiff, but does not directly affect the rights and obligations of the people. Therefore, the lawsuit in this case is not subject to revocation litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The calculation process of pre-distributions, etc. by year and by type of business from the calculation of national greenhouse gas emission prospects by year is as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

2) Relationship between total emission allowances and total emission allowances

The concept of total permissible emission allowances (CAP) refers to the total permissible emission of all greenhouse gases subject to the emission trading scheme established by taking into account national targets of reduction of greenhouse gases pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Emission Trading Act. Accordingly, total permissible emission allowances are the target emission amounts managed by the national target emission trading system.

The total number of emission permits related to the total number of emission permits means the total number of emission permits allocated or held by the Government during a commitment period, except for offset emission permits or emission permits introduced overseas.

The total amount of emission permits shall consist of the allocation of emission permits allocated to persons eligible for the application of the emission trading system and the number of emission permits allocated in advance to the State. Emission permits equivalent to the allocation in advance shall be allocated before a commitment period, and emission permits equivalent to reserve allocation shall be additionally allocated to business entities eligible

○ When converting total emission allowances into units for allocating, trading, and submitting them, the concept applied to the total emission allowances. Provided, That a portion of reserve shall be calculated separately from the total emission allowances, and the total emission allowances do not coincide with the total emission allowances.

(iii) emission allowances in reserve;

It means that it remains without allocating a certain portion of the total quantity of emission permits during the commitment period to additionally allocate emission permits in cases where it is impossible to resolve in advance prior allocation prior to the commitment period and to control the liquidity of the emission market (Article 18 of the Emission Trading Act).

The uses of the reserve portion and the uses of the reserve portion determined in the emission permits allocation plan prescribed by the statutes are as follows:

New entry: Allocation to new entrys who are newly designated as a business entity eligible for allocation in the emission trading system during the commitment period;

| 시장안정화조치 : 배출권 거래시장의 안정화를 위한 추가할당

- Earlier reduction performance: Additional allocation to the earlier reduction performance;

- New installation, enlargement, etc.: New installation or enlargement of unexpected facilities, acquisition or merger of workplaces and facilities, unexpected product items or business plans, modification of anticipated production items or business plans, and restriction development6) additional allocation voluntary participation in the increase in emission volume due to the increase in emission volume: The expansion of the operation of public transportation means or the extension of the allocation of public transportation to enterprises voluntarily participating in the emission trading system by compliance year during the commitment period: Additional allocation to "the expansion of the operation of public transportation means or measures for large heavy freight transportation" and "the utilization of inflammable wastes" under Article 12 (1) 6 and 7 of the

Objections: Preliminary allocation of emission permits, additional allocation, and adjustment of allocation by year, the number of emission permits for each use according to the result of an objection filed against the allocation of emission permits;

The reserve portion during the first commitment period of each year shall not be classified by compliance year, but shall be managed by the total amount of reserve portion.

Where there are the upper limit on the use of the reserve by the purpose of the classification by the use, the use of the reserve shall be classified, and the use of similar nature shall be managed without the upper limit

- Preliminary portion of earlier reduction performance: Management separately from other purposes because the upper limit has already been set pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act.

- Reserve portion for market stabilization measures: Management for the liquidity supply, etc. of emission permits markets, separately from that for other purposes;

- Reserve portion for other purposes: Additional allocation for new entry entities, voluntary participation entities, public transportation expansion, etc. and adjustment of quotas according to the results of an objection shall be divided into other purposes, but it shall not be divided within the same uses, but preliminary subdivision by management type: The number of emission permits for the first commitment period by type of business not for the optimal allocation of actual additional allocation demands;

(V) KAU (KAU)

A person shall be appointed.

4) The former Guidelines on the Allocation, Adjustment, and Revocation of Emission Permits (which was enacted as the Ministry of Environment Notice No. 2016-100, Jun. 8, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “instant Guidelines”) was established on September 12, 2014 in order to establish detailed matters and procedures regarding the methods for calculating the allocation of emission permits by business entity eligible for allocation, the designation of business entity eligible for allocation under the Act on the Methods of Calculating Emission Permits and the Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act, the methods and procedures for calculating allocation of emission permits, the adjustment of allocation of emission permits upon application, and the revocation of allocation of emission permits. According to the instant emission permit allocation plan and the instant guidelines, the calculation method of emission permits by business entity eligible for allocation shall be followed through the following procedures:

A) The basic system for calculating the allocation of emission permits by business entity eligible for allocation is as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

B) In the above table, prior allocation means the allocation of emission permits for the existing facilities of business entities eligible for allocation prior to the beginning of the commitment period for each compliance year (Article 12 of the Emission Trading Act). Additional allocation means the allocation of emission permits for the modification of allocation plans during the commitment period or for the unexpected newly established or expanded facilities of business entities eligible for allocation after the prior allocation (Article 16 of the Emission Trading Act). The revocation of allocation means the cancellation of the previous allocation of emission permits in cases where a business entity eligible for allocation is allocated allocation by fraudulent or other illegal means, the modification of allocation plans, the closure of the entire facilities, or the closure of the allocated facilities where the allocated facilities are not operated or suspended (Article 17 of the Emission Trading Act).

C) According to the method of computing the amount of allocation by company, it is divided into the previous emission-based allocation and the previous activity-based allocation of emission volume (Article 12(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act, Article 10 and attached Table 1 of the instant Guidelines), and the Plaintiff’s non-ferrous metal industry, such as the Plaintiff, are allocated based on the past emission levels, and the criteria are as follows: (a) the past emission-based allocation method (GF: gorfa) allocating emission permits to a level equivalent to or below that level based on the past greenhouse gas emission performance.

D) The basic system for calculating annual quotas based on the past emission-based allocation method is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

In principle, "existing facilities" in the above table shall be calculated on the basis of the annual average emission amount of the relevant facilities for three years (201-2013) (201-2013), and "pre-existing new and expanded facilities" shall be calculated on the basis of design capacity, load rate, operating hours, and emission intensity for new and expanded facilities planned during the period from 2014 to 2017. The adjusted coefficient is the measure to correct the difference between the allocation by type of business and the recognized quantity among the applied quantity to be applied for by all business entities eligible for allocation in the relevant type of business, which is the result calculated by dividing the allocation by the total recognized quantity among the applied quantity of all business entities eligible for allocation in the relevant type of business, and it shall be calculated within the extent not exceeding 1.

5) The adjusted coefficient of the non-ferrous metal sector to which the Plaintiff belongs is October 816, 2015, October 719, 2016, and October 703, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 11, 12, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) As to the allocation volume by the instant industry

(3) The allocation of emission permits for each type of business, including the Plaintiff, is to be determined at the same level in proportion to the adjustment factor, even if the adjustment factor is less than 1 because the adjustment factor is calculated within the range not exceeding 1. ② The allocation of emission permits for each type of business, to which the Plaintiff belongs, is to be determined at the KU of 20,259,79, and the adjustment factor of the allocation of emission permits for each type of business, including the whole evidence and arguments, is to be determined at the same level as above. Since the adjustment factor is to be determined within the extent not exceeding 1, the allocation factor of emission permits for each type of business, which is to be determined within the range not exceeding 20,259,79, and the adjustment factor of the allocation of non-ferrous metal type of business, which is to be determined within the extent not exceeding the final allocation factor of each type of business, is to be determined within the extent not exceeding the allocation quota determined within the range determined in accordance with the above adjustment factor, and it is to be determined at the final allocation factor of each type of business.

Therefore, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

2) The following circumstances are considered comprehensively considering the instant emission prospects, reduction targets, total emission volume, and reserve portion of emission permits by type of business, as well as the overall purport of each evidence and pleading as seen earlier. ① The government calculates the nationwide emission outlook for emission permits by year from BAU as an emission trading outlook for each type of business subject to the application of the annual emission trading system. If ETS BAU is divided into different levels of business, the annual emission outlook for each type of business is calculated. The annual total emission allowances by type of business are calculated if all the annual total emission allowances are calculated by combining the total emission allowances by business with the total emission allowances by business type; ② The total emission allowances by business type are calculated by year if all the annual total emission allowances are combined with each other; ② The total emission allowances by business type are calculated by year until the number of reserve emission permits is calculated by calculating the total emission allowances allocated for each type of business subject to the allocation; ③ The total emission allowances allocated by the State and business entity subject to the allocation of the total emission allowances so that the total emission allowances allocated can not be calculated by year.

Therefore, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

4. Whether each of the instant allocation plans is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The growth prospects by type of business are different that did not reflect the anticipated growth rates by type of business in the allocation by type of business. As such, in calculating the allocation by type of business, the defendant calculated the ‘ETS BAU' by applying the ‘State BAU' to the ‘State BAU', and then calculated the ‘ETS BAU' by applying the ETS emissions ratio by type of business based on past emission volume to the ‘ETSBU'. As such, the ‘ETS BAU by type of business' merely distributes the national total growth prospects based on past emission volumes, on the premise that the growth rates by type of business are the same as the growth rates by type of business in the whole country, it is unlawful that the calculation of the ‘ETS BAU by type of business' results in the calculation of the ‘ETS BAU by type of business.'

(ii) argument that the allocation by type of business was calculated by applying the unfair reduction rate by type of business.

In the road map of this case, the Defendant set the reduction rate by type of compliance year, and in the case of the non-ferrous metal industry, 4.1% of the reduction rate by April 2020. However, the Defendant’s proposed reduction rate is merely an unrealistic means that the Plaintiff has already realized or is unable to achieve, and is unlawful by calculating the reduction rate arbitrarily.

3) Claim that the allocation by type of business was calculated on the basis of a wrong national emission outlook (BAU).

At the time of formulating the instant emission permit allocation plan, the Defendant error in the observation value, such as the State BAU in 2009, which was the estimated value of the State's greenhouse gas emissions calculated in 2009, was considerably different from the State BAU in 2013, and the Defendant did not present the content and basis of the State BAU calculation, which is arbitrary calculated, and since the BAU of a relative concept was used as an absolute concept, the Defendant erred in calculating the allocation by type of business based on the erroneous State BAU.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The allocation plan of emission permits is a kind of administrative plan that is established on the basis of realizing certain order at a certain point in the future by integrating and coordinating administrative means related to each other in order to achieve specific administrative goals based on professional and technical judgments on administration.

The relevant laws and regulations, such as Article 5 of the Act on the Trading of Emission Permits, stipulate the matters for the establishment of a national emission permits allocation plan, and do not stipulate any specific provisions. Thus, in formulating and determining a specific emission permits allocation plan, the defendant holds a relatively broad freedom of formation, as in the case of general administrative plans. However, the defendant’s freedom of formation is not unlimited, but limited not only between public and private interests, but also between public and private interests. Thus, the administrative body’s establishment and determination of an administrative plan, where the administrative body fails to pay benefits at all or to include the matters that should be considered as the object of the balancing, or where it lacks legitimacy and objectivity, is unlawful.

2) Whether the anticipated growth rate was not reflected in the non-ferrous metal industry

On the other hand, the allocation plan of the emission permit of this case is to calculate the network prior to the volume of emission by type of business and to calculate the ETS BAU by allocating the national ETS BU calculated by multiplying the national BAU by the ratio of the emission volume subject to the application of the ETS to the ratio of the emission volume by type of business. The fact that the ratio of the emission volume by type of business from 2011 to 2013 is to use the average value of the emission volume in the past for three years from the base year to 2013

However, in full view of the following circumstances recognized as above, the Defendant did not err by failing to reflect the expected growth rate of the non-ferrous metal sector in calculating the forecast of greenhouse gas emissions from the category of business belonging to the non-ferrous metal sector in the instant emission permit allocation plan.

(1) As greenhouse gas emissions ordinarily increase or decrease in proportion to the operating rate of facilities or production, if one type of business appears to increase greenhouse gas emissions during a previous period in the past, it may be determined as the type of business, the growth rate of which is increased, and if greenhouse gas emissions are found to decrease during a previous period, such type of business as the type of business, the growth rate of which is reduced

② As above, it seems reasonable to predict that the growth rate will continue for a certain period of time in the future, considering the change in greenhouse gas emissions during the past period.

(3) The Defendant calculated the expected greenhouse gas emissions for each compliance year, respectively, by reflecting the fluctuation in greenhouse gases for three years in the base year, when average greenhouse gas emissions by three years of base year are considered as the starting point for calculating the anticipated greenhouse gas emissions for the three years of base year.

④ The estimated actual gas emission volume during the commitment period for the non-ferrous metal type, which has continuously increased greenhouse gas emissions in the base year, was calculated and reflected in the 2015 KU and 4.7 million KU in the year 2015, and in the year 2016, 4.7 million in the 2017. On the other hand, in the case of the category of paper and timber sector where the continuous decrease of greenhouse gas emissions in the base year, the anticipated greenhouse gas emissions are continuously reduced (7.9 million in the year 2015, 7.8 million in the year 2016, and 7.7 million in the year 2017).

⑤ In a policy determination on the fact that it is difficult to verify the likelihood of causing disputes among the types of business due to the increase of factors to be verified when solely considering the anticipated growth rate by industry, based on only the prospect of growth rate, and that it is easy to verify the change in the previous emission volume, the Defendant appears to have calculated the anticipated growth rate of the type of business based on the change in emission volume in the past, not only on the prospect of growth rate but also on the basis of the change in emission volume in the past. In addition, prior to determining the above method, the Defendant conducted a review of the cases of similarity abroad,

3) Whether there is an illegal cause for applying the reduction rate by type of business

In full view of the following circumstances that are recognized as a whole by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant’s determination of the reduction rate of greenhouse gas emissions in the non-ferrous metal sector in the instant emission permit allocation plan as 0.7% (2015), 0.9% (2016), and 1.3% (2017), etc. (2017) has not reflected in the level of reduced technology of the non-ferrous metal sector.

Even if there is no reasonable ground, it is difficult to view that the defendant calculated and applied the reduction rate arbitrarily without reasonable grounds.

① “Reduction rate by type of business” in the allocation plan of emission permits of this case is accepted as it is determined in the road map of this case. “Reduction rate by type of business” in the road map of this case is established jointly by the Government under the jurisdiction of the Office for Government Policy Coordination, the National Policy Coordination Committee, the Joint Working Group Operation Meeting of the Ministries concerned (including external expert review meetings, etc.) held on 13 occasions from May 2013 to May 201, the opinion gathering at briefing sessions held by industrial sector, NGO, etc. on January 17, 2014, the deliberation of the Green Growth Committee, and the report and confirmation by the State Council.

② The calculation of the reduction rate of greenhouse gases for the non-ferrous metal industry is based on the progressive increase of the reduction rate of the non-ferrous metal industry from the road map of this case to 4.1% by 2020. In addition, the basis for deeming the reduction rate of the non-ferrous metal industry to 4.1% by 2020 from the road map of this case is, as a result of sufficiently gathering opinions from various circles, it is possible to calculate the reduction rate of 4.1% by introducing high-efficiency motors, boilers, and drying apparatus to the non-metallic metal industry and the subsequent reduction rate.

3. Since the above reduced technology is not in the same way as the reduced technology presented by the defendant in a reasonable standard, some or all of the above reduced technology is reflected in the non-ferrous metal industry.

Even if there is an error in calculating the reduction rate on this ground, it cannot be deemed that there is an error in calculating the reduction rate on this ground. In other words, it is diverse ways to achieve the reduction rate of the non-ferrous metal industry by reflecting the development and reflection of unforeseeable reduced technology at the time of determining the allocation plan of the instant emission permit or the road map of this case, so the technology that can reduce greenhouse gases from the non-ferrous metal industry is not limited to the reduction technology set forth in the road map of this case.

④ The type of non-ferrous metal industry is a type of business that requires conversion into low carbon industrial structure ultimately as a representative type of greenhouse gas emissions. In light of the foregoing social demands, the total national reduction rate for the commitment period under the plan to allocate emission permits is 10.0% in 2015, 13.8% in 2016, 16.2% in 2017, and the average reduction rate for industry is 7.9% in 2015, 9.7% in 2016, and 11.6% in 2017, it is difficult to deem that the reduction rate for non-ferrous metal industry is 0.7% in 2015, 0.9% in 2016, and 3% in 2017.

⑤ When determining the allocation plan of the instant emission permits, the Defendant actively reflected the opinions of interested parties, etc. regarding the reduction rate, and actively applied the reduction rate of 10% to all types of business, and strengthened overall rationality in calculating the reduction rate by applying the reduction rate of 80% to the indirect emission sector with a relatively large burden.

4) Whether there is an illegal cause with respect to the State BAU

In light of the above legal principles in light of the following circumstances that are recognized as being comprehensively based on the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, there is an error in the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant erred in using BAU in the emission permit allocation plan of this case, or determined the State BAU in 2009 as the basis for calculating the total permissible volume of emission.

It is difficult to see it.

① In July 2009, the State BAU centered on the Green Growth Committee, which was a direct organization of the President at the time, established and established a broad range of the process of collecting concurrent offices, including UN Intellectual PropertyCC, a Vice-Chairperson on July 2009, on the basis of the results of the analysis of a research team consisting of the government-funded research institutes. A public hearing and a meeting held on 44 occasions from August 2009 to the next 209, a public hearing and a meeting held on 44 occasions, a meeting held on 30 occasions from the next 209, the consultation of related ministries, the State Council, etc.

② As the government submitted to UN on March 2012, the third national report of the Republic of Korea pursuant to UN FCCC, and the first anniversary of the 2009 anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 2009 UN Framework Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 2009 United Nations Framework Act on the 2009 National BAU was included in the 209 National BAU, the government needs to maintain international trust, barring any special circumstances.

It was true that the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from 2010 to 2014 under the State BAU in 2009 were recorded below the actual greenhouse gas emissions during the same period. However, the difference is merely 3.6% of the difference between the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from 2010 to 2014 according to the State BAU in 2009 and the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from 2020 in accordance with the State BAU in 2009, claiming that the plaintiff should base the calculation standards instead of the State BAU in 2009.

④ In the case of the non-ferrous metal industry to which the Plaintiff belongs, the allocation of emission permits for the commitment period to which the State BAU was applied in 2009 is 20.3 million, while the allocation of emission permits during the same period to which the State BAU was applied in 2013 is 20.1 million, and it is difficult to conclude that applying the State BAU in 2009 is disadvantageous or unreasonable to the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

As the BAU decision itself is a policy decision, it is not necessarily required to change the BAU merely because the actual amount of emissions increases more than the estimated amount pursuant to the BAU.

6. The uncertainty of the burden of greenhouse gas reductions resulting from changes in economic conditions does not relate to the type of actual gas reductions in the countries, such as BAU, and the countries that presented BAU reductions in the target of greenhouse gas reductions by countries submitted to UN by 2020, as Korea, are 11 countries, such as BAU reduction, and the South Africa, among the above countries, there seems to be no countries that publicly announced changes in BAU due to changes in economic conditions and impact on industrial competitiveness.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge, Yoon-sung

Judges Kim Jae-han

Judge Kang Dong-hun

Note tin

1) It estimatess the total greenhouse gas emissions anticipated to be emitted if any artificial measure is not taken to reduce greenhouse gases.

2) Ausi business business is a business reduction of Astern Us.

3) It refers to the amount equivalent to one ton of carbon dioxide (Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Emission Trading Act) that has an impact on global warming of one ton of carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas as defined in Article 2 subparag. 9 of the Green Growth Act.

4) The Plaintiff filed an application with the Minister of Environment for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission permits for the instant commitment period based on the estimated greenhouse gas emission levels of 1,249,061 in total during the period of the application for the allocation of emission permits. On December 1, 2014, the Minister of Environment notified the Plaintiff of the annual allocation of the instant commitment period to 340,548, 2015, 300,548, 300,291, 2016, 294, 262, 2017, the sum of 935,206, 206, of the instant commitment period to the Plaintiff.

5) The term “emission trading scheme” means the Economic Commission’s emissions trading scheme.

6) Paragraph (a) for the stable operation of electric power systems, such as power failure, power cable failure, heat supply, fuel control, and power transmission control (excluding where a person in question gives rise to a cause), is a case of power generation under the direction of the Korea Power Exchange under Article 45 of the Electric Utility Act (Article 21(5)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Emission Trading Act).