1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be added to the judgment of this court in Paragraph 2, and even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to this court is added, the fact-finding and the judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable, and it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition of the judgment that there is no error as alleged by the plaintiff, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8

2. The further determination of this Court

A. On April 26, 2016, the Plaintiff’s gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Defendant, after collecting discharged water from the Plaintiff’s workplace, performed prompt and appropriate follow-up measures, such as suspending immediate release; and (b) normalization of the quality of final ex post facto water; and (c) this constitutes a case where the Plaintiff’s act of violating Article 39 of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 688, Jan. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same) and Article 105(2)2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Ecosystem Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 688, Jan.

Even if the Defendant did not reduce the period of suspension of operation of this case, it should have taken into account such voluntary mitigation causes, but the instant suspension of operation was taken without considering it at all, and thus, the instant suspension of operation was an unlawful act that deviates from and abused discretion.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged prior to the existence of the grounds for voluntary mitigation and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above quoted evidences, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff constitutes a case where the Plaintiff committed an act of violating “unfavorable” and there is a ground for voluntary mitigation under Article 105(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Ecosystem Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

① Since the subject who runs the wastewater treatment business using the micro-organism treatment facility of this case is the Plaintiff himself/herself, the subject who runs the wastewater treatment business on April 22, 2016.