1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff was designated and publicly announced as a controlled entity under Article 42(5) of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth (hereinafter “Framework Act”).

B. On September 12, 2014, the Defendant first designated and publicly announced an enterprise eligible for allocation of emission permits under Article 8 of the Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gases (hereinafter “Emissions Trading Act”), but the said list of business entities eligible for allocation was not included by the Plaintiff.

The first commitment period under the Emission Trading Act is from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017.

C. On May 8, 2015, pursuant to Article 44 of the Framework Act and Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff first submitted to the Defendant a statement of greenhouse gas emissions, etc. from 2011 to 2014 (hereinafter “instant statement”).

On July 31, 2015, the Defendant: “As a result of the review of the instant statement, it was revealed that the annual average total amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the Plaintiff’s workplace from 2012 to 2014 was above 25,000tCO2-eq;” the Plaintiff was classified as a new entry under Article 9 of the Emission Trading Act; and designated and publicly announced as a business entity eligible for allocation.

E. On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for the allocation of emission permits to the Defendant as indicated in the “the Plaintiff’s filing amount,” but the Defendant issued a disposition of allocation of emission permits that did not apply to the Plaintiff on October 29, 2015, as indicated in the “Defendant’s allocation” attached Form.

(Report that there was a rejection disposition of the defendant against the allocation refused in the attached Form, hereinafter the "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 4, Gap evidence 4-1 and Eul evidence 4-3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion first, the Plaintiff had already met the requirements for designation as a business entity eligible for allocation in 2014, but was omitted due to Defendant’s mistake in 2015.