1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Nos. 6, 4, and 8 shall be followed by the following:

2) In applying the imposition coefficient applicable to the frequency of violations by type of workplace, the imposition coefficient applicable to the frequency of violations according to the frequency of violations by type of workplace, including the Plaintiff, on the basis of wastewater discharged by each workplace, including the Plaintiff, respectively, and the Defendant calculated the total amount of excess discharge dues by applying the imposition coefficient applicable to the Class 1 workplace based on the association operated with joint prevention facilities of this case, and distributed it.

B. Although the defendant applied the coefficient of the frequency of violation on the basis of the frequency of each disposition of this case, when he received an improvement order for each place of business, the coefficient of the frequency of violation should be calculated on the basis of the number of times of receipt of the improvement order for each place of business.

B. The application of the second-class imposition coefficient to the second-class judgment of the court of first instance is below 'the application of the second-class imposition coefficient to the second-class judgment' (the first-class judgment and judgment are different with regard to whether the application of the frequency of violation is illegal). 2) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to apply the coefficient corresponding to the first-class place of business based on the association of this case where joint prevention facilities of this case are operated, since it is determined that it is reasonable to apply the coefficient corresponding to the first-class place of business.