beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who operates a gas station in the name of “D gas station” in the following City:
The Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may order the installer of specific facilities subject to the control of soil contamination to install or improve the facilities for preventing soil contamination or to take measures for detailed soil survey or purification of soil contamination against the site and surrounding areas of such facilities within a fixed period, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.
As a result of conducting a detailed investigation into soil contamination (from May 24, 2005 to June 17, 2005), the Defendant was subject to an administrative disposition from the following market on February 19, 2009 (i.e., an order to purify contaminated soil until August 18, 201). The Defendant was extended twice pursuant to Article 8-3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Soil Environment Conservation Act, but did not comply with the order to purify contaminated soil within the said period.
The Defendant, on September 13, 2013, received a demand from the following market to implement a purification order by March 17, 2014, but failed to perform the purification order by June 13, 2014.
2. The main point of the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion is that the ground for pollution of the D gas station site operated by the defendant is not caused by the pollutants leaked from the above gas station, but caused by the pollutants generated in the course of removing underground storage facilities and pipes that were in the underground space of the land acquired through consultation from the defendant by the eurisan Regional Land Management Office. Thus, such soil contamination is not attributable to the defendant.
The former Soil Environment Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 1051, Apr. 5, 2011; hereinafter “former Soil Environment Conservation Act”) requires the owner of facilities subject to the control of soil contamination to be liable for negligence, but the Constitutional Court related thereto.