The case revoking the imposition of excess discharge dues under the Water Quality Conservation Act on the ground that the imposition of excess discharge dues under the premise of the inspection results is unlawful on the grounds that the credibility of the inspection results of the sample is very doubtful, such as the possibility that foreign substances are mixed in the course of collecting samples,

The case revoking the imposition of excess discharge dues under the Water Quality Conservation Act on the ground that the imposition of excess discharge dues under the premise of the inspection results is illegal on the grounds that the credibility of the inspection results of the sample is very doubtful, such as it is impossible to exclude the possibility that foreign substances are mixed in the course

Articles 7, 8, and 19 of the Water Quality Conservation Act

Dongyang Chemical Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-sub, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City

January 8, 2004

1. The Defendant’s imposition of excess discharge dues of KRW 5,080,503,040 against the Plaintiff on May 15, 2003 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells various chemical products, such as small associations and human acid, with permission for the installation of wastewater discharge facilities from the Defendant, and installs and operates a wastewater treatment plant on one parcel, other than 595, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City.

B. On April 18, 2003, public officials of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Environmental Sanitation and Environmental Guidance Team patrols the Plaintiff’s wastewater discharge facilities and surrounding areas. On the same day, at around 15:00 of the same day, they visited the Plaintiff Company to measure the level of discharged water through the final discharge outlet of the Plaintiff Company’s wastewater treatment plant. While this school income arrives at the final discharge outlet of the Plaintiff Company’s wastewater treatment plant upon receiving the Plaintiff Company’s instruction of Kim Young-young, the Plaintiff Company’s Environmental Safety Team’s Environmental Safety Team’s waste treatment plant container (hereinafter referred to as “the instant plastic container”) in a white plastic container that made it possible for the Plaintiff Company’s Environmental Safety Team, a wastewater treatment plant, to prepare for the Plaintiff Company’s wastewater treatment plant (hereinafter referred to as “the instant samples”), it used the Plaintiff Company’s waste-free plastic container that prepared for the inspection without treating it as discharged water.

On the other hand, Embling Sym (hereinafter “Tms”) did not prepare tools to measure hydrogen temperature concentration at the time. According to the automatic water-quality pollutants measuring device installed at the site, the hydrogen ion concentration at the time of the final effluent was pH 7.3, and as a result of the patrol, there were no special factors such as the unauthorized discharge of wastewater and the pollution of surrounding academic interest.

C. Around the date of collecting samples, this school interest requested the Incheon Metropolitan City Health and Environment Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as the “Health and Environment Research Institute”) to examine the water quality pollution level (the time of receiving the request for inspection). On April 24, 200, when a total manager of 689.04m/liter was detected in excess of the permissible emission level (8m/liter) as a result of the examination by the Health and Environment Research Institute (the level of hydrogen temperature at that time was not inspected), and notified the Plaintiff company of an administrative disposition that plans to impose an improvement order and discharge dues on the Plaintiff company on the grounds that the total water quality level exceeded the permissible emission level of the Plaintiff company and to present its opinion.

D. On this issue, the Plaintiff, as a result of the inspection, presented an opinion that the Plaintiff’s total quantity of water was not due to the total quantity of water discharged, but because the sample was contaminated by using water contaminated by stein in the process of collecting samples. In order to establish such a assertion, the Plaintiff stored the sample until the resolution of the instant case, the result of the examination of hydrogen temperature concentration on the sample, and the Incheon Metropolitan City Environment Automatic Monitoring Information Center’s Tmscopic concentration on the date of the inspection to verify and inform the information on water hydrogen concentration on the date of the inspection.

E. After examining the opinions submitted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on April 26 of the same year on the grounds that the instant samples were taken pursuant to the water pollution test method (No. 99-208, Jan. 5, 200), and notified the Plaintiff that the excess discharge dues will be imposed.

F. The Plaintiff requested re-inspection on the basis of the difference between the hydrogen ion concentration (pH7.3) confirmed by Tms on April 29 of the same year after being notified of the results of the inspection conducted at the request of the Public Health and Environment Research Institute on April 26, 2003 (which was conducted at the request of April 26, 2003, and evidence A6-2) from the pH 1.9. However, the Defendant rejected the request for re-inspection on the ground that the same samples as those collected at April 18, 2003 cannot be collected. On May 15 of the same year, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing an amount exceeding KRW 5,080,50,03,040 on the Plaintiff, by applying Article 19 of the Water Quality Conservation Act, on the ground that he discharged water pollutants exceeding the permissible discharge levels from wastewater discharge facilities.

G. On the other hand, on April 25 of the same year, the above Lee Jong-hoon et al. conducted a public-private partnership patrol on the day of the wastewater treatment facilities of this case, collected samples from the school-interestcheon, and requested the Public Health and Environment Research Institute to conduct a water pollution inspection, but did not find any environmental pollution. At that time, no special violation was found in the business trip investigation on the plaintiff company. However, at the time of collecting the sample of this case, the above business trip statement was prepared and reported on April 30 of the same year to the effect that the wastewater treatment facilities of the plaintiff company were exposed to the wastewater treatment facilities, and there was no possibility of contamination due to the leakage of the wastewater treatment facilities of the production facilities of the plaintiff company in the field of the water pollution, the water pollution inspection conducted on the water pollution inspection on the water from the wastewater drainage route, 71.6km/liter from the process cooling water, 1.06wm of wastewater from the process cooling water, 62.60/600 of the wastewater collecting water from the plaintiff company, and the aggregate sample of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap-1 through 7, 9 through 12, 19 through 21, Eul-1 through 6, 8 through 11, 17 through 19, 24, 25 (including paper numbers), witness stand-ho, Kim Young-ho, testimony of Lee Young-hu, and the whole purport of oral argument

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

(A) This case’s sample is prepared, and this case’s sample is not directly collected using a container, and it is not required to be stored in the container for collecting water, which is an employee of the Plaintiff company, instead of using a container for collecting water. In addition, this case’s sample is not completely taken after using the Plaintiff company, which was used and discarded in the Plaintiff company on the day before the sample sample is collected, and it is not entirely taken in the container. At the time of sample sample collection, this case’s sample was used not less than three times as a sample as stipulated in the water pollution test method. Accordingly, the method of collecting water was erroneous in failing to observe the water pollution test method, which is a public notice of the Ministry of Environment based on Article 7 of the Water Quality Conservation Act, and the disposition of this case is unlawful on the premise of the test result of “indition contaminated with a sample contaminated with a water actually discharged.”

(B) Considering the difference between hydrogen ion concentration test result of the Public Health and Environment Research Institute (PH 1.9) and the hydrogen ion concentration (PH7.3) of the sample of this case at the time of collecting samples confirmed by Tms, the total wastewater treatment capacity (170,000 cubic meters) and daily wastewater treatment volume (17,520 cubic meters) in the Plaintiff Company’s wastewater treatment site, and the daily wastewater treatment volume (57.8t) of the Plaintiff Company, it is substantially impossible to reach the total wastewater of 689.04m/liter, and in reality, the disposition of this case was conducted by the Plaintiff Company on the ground that the total wastewater ion concentration was destroyed by the neighboring drainage if the wastewater was discharged, and the pollution of the marine ecosystem around the Plaintiff Company was seriously affected by the water pollution test conducted by the Plaintiff Company before and after the water pollution test and that the water pollution sample of this case cannot be seen as unlawful in view of the fact that the water pollution sample of this case was conducted by the Plaintiff Company on its own own own test and the Environmental Research Institute (hereinafter.

(2) Defendant

The sample of this case was taken in line with the water pollution test method, and even if the method of collecting household water was contrary to the water pollution test method, it cannot be viewed as an unlawful administrative rule merely because it was an administrative rule. In addition, the possibility that the water was contaminated due to the inflow of artificial production facilities of the Plaintiff company into the wastewater discharge facility cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, the disposition of this case is lawful.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry is as follows.

(c) Markets:

In order to ensure accuracy and uniformity of the measurement of water pollutants under Article 7 of the Water Quality Conservation Act, the method of testing the water pollution process (the method of collecting and preserving the samples of Paragraph (3) and the method of collecting samples of 1.2) publicly notified by the Minister of Environment (the method of collecting and preserving samples of 1.2) provides that samples shall be taken using samples containers or water pumps at a location that can represent the nature of the target samples, and samples shall be used at least three times as samples before collecting samples. The collection container differs from the actual discharge of samples if foreign substances are mixed in samples in the process of collecting samples, so it is not possible to use samples as the basis for determining whether water pollutants are discharged in the wastewater treatment facility subject to the collection process. Thus, if samples are taken without directly collecting samples from the wastewater treatment facility and leaving them in the process of collecting samples, the collection container can be seen as representing the relevant samples discharged from the wastewater treatment facility only after removing them by the same method.

However, according to the above facts, since the possibility of mixing of foreign substances in the process of collecting samples cannot be ruled out, the result of the examination on the samples of this case is not appropriate to take into consideration as data to determine whether the discharged water is contaminated by the wastewater treatment facilities of this case. Furthermore, in light of the various circumstances shown in the records of this case, it is difficult to view that the whole quantity of the discharged water collected from the samples of this case was contaminated to the extent that the water was contaminated by the above examination result due to the leakage of human acid in the plaintiff factory, and the business trip investigation conducted after collecting the samples of this case, and that there was no report or civil petition before and after collecting the samples of this case, it cannot be deemed that the credibility of the samples of this case is extremely doubtful, considering the following factors: (a) the hydrogen ion concentration of hydrogen of the samples of this case and the water ion concentration of hydrogen measured by Tms on the date of the inspection; and (b) the total quantity of water collected from the plaintiff company and the daily output of the plaintiff company.

The defendant asserts to the purport that it is unfair for the plaintiff company to raise an objection to the method of collecting samples, even though the plaintiff company's employee is a practice to leave samples, but the defendant's assertion is without merit since the defendant's obligation to guarantee the accuracy of the test results, which serves as the basis of administrative disposition, exists in the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the disposition of this case is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Judge)