Whether the discharge dues can be imposed on the basis of the "Rules on the Operation of Joint Preventive Facilities", which merely define the internal relations between the operators who installed the Joint Preventive Facilities (negative)

According to Article 19-2(1) of the former Environmental Conservation Act (repealed by the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, Act No. 4257, Aug. 1, 1990), discharge dues should be imposed up to the amount equivalent to the cost of treating pollutants discharged by business operators. Thus, in cases where discharge dues are imposed upon pollutants discharged from joint prevention facilities, the administrative agency should reasonably calculate the quantity of pollutants actually discharged by each business operator through the quantity of raw materials, the quantity of products, the process, etc. used for each business establishment, and impose only the amount equivalent to the cost of treating pollutants discharged by each business operator. Furthermore, the administrative disposition imposing obligations on the people, such as the imposition of discharge dues, should be conducted under the legal basis. Thus, the administrative disposition imposing obligations on the people should be conducted under the law. Thus, the imposition of discharge dues cannot be imposed on the basis of the regulations on the operation of joint prevention facilities, such as small theory, which merely define internal relations between the business operators who installed the joint prevention facilities, and

Articles 15-3(1) and 19-2(1) of the former Environmental Conservation Act (Amended by Act No. 4257, Aug. 1, 1990);

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Daegu Local Government Governor

Daegu High Court Decision 94Gu5794 delivered on October 26, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to Article 19-2 (1) of the former Environmental Conservation Act (amended by the Framework Act on Environmental Policy as of February 1, 1991), discharge dues should be imposed up to an amount equivalent to the cost of disposal of pollutants discharged by a business operator. Thus, in cases where discharge dues are imposed from joint prevention facilities, the administrative agency should reasonably calculate the amount of pollutants, etc. actually discharged by each business operator through the quantity of raw materials used for each business place, the quantity of products, the process, etc., and impose only an amount equivalent to the cost of disposal of pollutants discharged by each business operator. Furthermore, the administrative disposition imposing obligations on the people, such as imposition of discharge dues, should be conducted under the legal basis. Thus, the administrative disposition imposing obligations on the people should not be imposed on the basis of the "Rules on the Operation of Joint Prevention Facilities" (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu23763, May 10, 1994; 93Nu2389, May 13, 1994).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that, in the case of the discharge of pollutants exceeding the permissible discharge standards through the original wastewater treatment plant of the △△△ Cooperative, the discharge dues should be assessed against the plaintiffs, who are the business operators who installed and operated the discharge facilities, in proportion to their raw material quantity and product quantity, and the total amount of discharge dues should be assessed in installments according to their actual discharge quantity. In addition, even though there is no evidence to deem that the above association's investment ratio and the discharge amount are proportional, the defendant did not investigate the total amount of excess pollutants discharged by each business establishment, and without examining the total amount of excess pollutants discharged by the plaintiffs, it is unlawful to impose upon the plaintiffs the discharge dues calculated by dividing the amount equivalent to the total discharge dues to be imposed in the above wastewater treatment plant according to the above

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)