2017du61652 Action to revoke allocation of greenhouse gas emission permits.

1. A large-scale development company;

2. A non-Tex stock company;

3. Scal forest oil company.

4. K.S. stock company;

5. New Daily Co., Ltd.; and

6. Bable lug rink Co., Ltd. (formerly: Large Street Co., Ltd.);

7. The stock company's energy sort;

8. Co., Ltd.;

9. Cas environmental service corporation, which is a litigation taking-off system for the wrch industry corporation;

10. Dongyang Co., Ltd.;

11. Fame of a stock company;

12. Cas environmental services company;

The Minister of Environment

Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu38746 Decided August 24, 2017

November 9, 2018

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 42(1)1 of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth (hereinafter “green Growth Act”), which was enacted on January 13, 2010 and enforced on April 14, 2010, the Government shall set the targets of greenhouse gas reduction and take measures necessary to achieve the targets of greenhouse gas reduction in order to actively cope with global greenhouse gas reduction and to efficiently and systematically promote low carbon, green growth. According to Article 25(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27180, May 24, 2016), the targets of greenhouse gas reduction under Article 42(1)1 of the Green Growth Act, which was enforced on the same date, are “the reduction by up to 30/100 of the total nationwide emission outlook for greenhouse gas emissions in 2020.” According to Article 46(1), (2), and (4) of the Green Growth Act, the Government may separately allocate the State’s operation and management methods of greenhouse Gas emissions to achieve emission emissions to achieve.

Accordingly, according to Article 12(1) and (2) of the Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits (hereinafter “Act”) enacted on May 14, 2012, Article 12(1) and (2) of the Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits, the criteria for allocation of emission permits to business entities eligible for allocation of emission permits have been determined by Presidential Decree in consideration of the matters set forth in each subparagraph of Article 12(2) of the Act, and subparagraph 7 of Article 42 of the Act has to consider “the degree of contribution to the achievement of national targets for reduction of greenhouse gases (referring to reduction of greenhouse gases under Article 42(1)1 of the Green Growth Act, referring to subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the Act on the Allocation and Trading

In addition, Article 12(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27181, May 24, 2016) stipulates that the allocation of emission permits by business entity eligible for allocation shall be determined in consideration of the matters prescribed in each subparagraph and the matters prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 12(2) of the Emission Trading Act, and that "the degree of contribution to the reduction of national greenhouse gas emissions by using combustible wastes instead of fossil fuels" in subparagraph 7 should be considered (hereinafter referred to as "Enforcement Decree of this case").

2. On or after April 14, 2010, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not consider the provisions of this case and the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case at the time of allocating emission permits to the Plaintiffs, on the grounds that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs had made an investment in facilities for the purpose of reducing national greenhouse gas, and that sales of waste incineration companies (which can replace fossil fuels) such as the Plaintiffs are not subject to the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case. In light of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation and application of the provisions of this case and the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-soo

Justices Kim Jong-il

Chief Justice Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Il-san