Whether the condition of discharge of pollutants after the completion of construction is improved or the reason why preventive facilities normally operate falls under the grounds for adjusting discharge dues under Article 17-13(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Conservation Act (repealed by the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy No. 1303, Feb. 2, 1991) if the construction has not been completed by the expiration date of the improvement period (negative)

Article 17-13 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Preservation Act (repealed by the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, Act No. 1303, Feb. 2, 1991) does not complete the improvement by the expiration date, etc. of the improvement period under Article 17-9 (1) 1 or 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and on the contrary, the adjustment provision concerning the additional imposition of dues for the extended emission period after the expiration of the improvement period and the reduction of dues already imposed for the emission period that has been reduced by the completion of the improvement before the expiration of the improvement period. Thus, if the construction has not been completed within the construction period, the improvement of the emission status of pollutants after the completion of the construction or the normal operation of preventive facilities does not constitute a ground for adjustment

Articles 17-13 (1) 1 and 17-9 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Preservation Act (repealed by the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy No. 13303 of February 2, 1991)

Mod Special Site Corporation

Governor of Jeollabuk-do

Gwangju High Court Decision 90Gu1402 delivered on January 23, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. We examine the defendant's first and third grounds for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff's initial CO1's 15 days from January 17, 1990 to March 31 of the same month filed a voluntary report on the abnormal operation of discharging facilities, and repair and alteration of the injury and bed, as a result of the above construction period's collection and analysis of wastewater discharged from the plaintiff's construction site on January 19, 190 and January 22 of the same month, that COD concentration (chemical oxygen demand) and SS concentration ( suspended in accordance with the Framework Act on Environmental Policy on August 1, 190) exceeded permissible emission levels, and that the plaintiff's CO1's 2 days from January 17, 1990 to 30 days from January 19, 199 to 31 of the same month exceeded the original CO2's CO1's CO2's CO2's CO2's CO5 days from the date of the improvement of the above construction period.

However, according to the provisions of Article 17-13 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Conservation Act, where the improvement or the implementation of the order is not completed by the date of expiration of the improvement period or the scheduled date of completion of the order under Article 17-9 (1) 1 or 2, or where the discharge period of the pollutant or the pollutant which is the basis of calculating the dues is changed due to the completion of the improvement or implementation of the order within the same period, the dues are calculated again and adjusted, but if there is a difference between the already paid amount and the adjusted amount, the difference is again imposed or refunded. This is a adjustment provision on the case where the additional imposition of dues is imposed on the extended discharge period after the expiration of the improvement period and the reduction of dues already imposed on the reduced discharge period due to the completion of the improvement before the expiration of the improvement period. Thus, in this case, it is obvious by the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff failed to complete the construction work within the above period, and it is not reasonable to interpret the above provision as the ground for adjustment.

However, Article 17-13 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act recognizes that the emission of pollutants, etc. has changed after the imposition of discharge dues as one of the grounds for adjusting discharge dues and re-examination thereof. According to the facts established by the court below and the employment evidence thereof, COD concentration was 15.1, which is more than 150,00 more than 150,000,000 more than 150,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00.

The court below should have deliberated on the above issues.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records and reasoning of the judgment below, although the defendant's calculation of the discharge dues of this case was somewhat insufficient, it is obvious that the period from January 17, 1990 to the 21th of the same month, which is the period from January 21, 1990, was based on the results of water quality testing conducted on the 19th of the same month, which is the period from January 17, 190 to the 31th of the same month, and therefore, it is therefore unreasonable because it is due to the misunderstanding the purport of the judgment of the court below.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.