1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who engages in the business of manufacturing metal surface treatment paints in the trade name of “C” from emulsisisisib City B.

B. On June 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) checked the Plaintiff’s place of business and checked the ingredients of wastewater; and (b) confirmed that: (a) one meter from 5.28 cubic meters of industrial treatment facilities, 1 meter from 7.824 cubic meters of waste treatment facilities, 1 meter from 5.28 cubic meters of 0.28 cubic meters, 1 meter from 5.28 cubic meters of waste treatment facilities, 1 meter from 5.28 cubic meters from 5.28 cubic meters of color facilities (hereinafter “instant facilities”); (b) 0.13ml/L from the Sinan (CN); (c) 4.50ml/L; (Pb) 5.89ml/L; and (hg) 0.0162ml/L

C. On September 28, 2017, the Defendant ordered the closure of the instant facilities pursuant to Article 71 of the former Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act and Article 105 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 745, Jan. 17, 2018) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 33(1) of the former Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 14532, Jan. 17, 2017; hereinafter “former Water Quality Ecosystem Act”).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In a case where wastewater contaminated in the process of various processes is generated only, and it cannot be deemed that it falls under the discharge facilities stipulated in the former Water Quality Ecosystem Act if it was not discharged externally. Since the instant facilities are closely closed and do not plan the discharge of wastewater externally, it does not constitute wastewater discharge facilities defined in the former Water Quality Ecosystem Act.

B. The raw materials additives used by the Plaintiff do not contain specific substances harmful to water quality, and the detected copper, etc. merely cause far away ingredients of the materials, such as alzinum, and thus, the facilities of this case shall preserve the water quality and aquatic ecosystems.