In this case, the project implementer has to hold a presentation in city A. 

Under Article 25 (1) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (hereafter “the Act”), it is prescribed that a project implementer shall formulate a draft environmental impact assessment report and gather consensus thereon from residents, etc. And under paragraph (6) of the same Article, it is stated that matters necessary for the methods for preparing draft environmental impact assessment reports made under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Also, in accordance with Article 39 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, if a “project zone subject to environmental impact assessment” straddles at least 2 Si/Gun/Gus, the relevant project implementer shall hold a presentation at each Si/Gun/Gu respectively. In this regard, if the area involved in the project subject to environmental impact assessment does not straddle two or more Si/Gun/Gus, it will be consistent with the ordinary meeting of the wording to interpret that the project implementer shall hold a presentation only in the relevant Si/Gun/Gu where the project subject to environmental impact assessment is implemented. 

In addition, strategic environmental impact assessment is conducted when intending to establish a plan on an urban development project or a plan for the development of an industrial site or industrial complex pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Act, and according to Article 11 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, each draft strategic environmental impact assessment shall include matters such as an overview of the master development plan and the area subject to strategic environmental impact assessment. On the other hand, pursuant to Article 22 (1) of the Act, an environmental impact assessment is conducted when intending to implement an urban development project, a plan to develop an industrial site or industrial complex, etc. and Article 34 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act prescribes that a draft environmental impact assessment report shall include an overview of the project (subparagraph 2), the extent of an area affected by each item of assessment by the implementation of the project subject to environmental impact assessment and the present environment condition of its environs (subparagraph 3). As such, the two types of assessments are conducted when establishing and implementing a “plan” or a “project”, respectively that impacts the environment, and the two assessments are different in nature and the content of their report. Also, in terms of the audience of the presentation, the strategic environmental impact assessment targets “the area subject to assessment” while the environmental impact assessment targets “the project subject to assessment”. Therefore, it should be considered that the area subject to presentation on environmental impact assessment pursuant to the regulations of the Act is different from the area subject to presentation on strategic environmental impact assessment. 

Also, administrative laws that form a ground for burdening administrative acts should be strictly interpreted and applied, and their interpretation should not be extensive or analogous in a way that is disadvantageous to the recipient of the administrative act. In this regard, when a project subject to environmental impact assessment does not straddle two or more Si/Gun/Gus, obligating an additional presentation at another Si/Gun/Gu just because it is adjacent to the Si/Gun/Gu where the project subject to environmental impact assessment is to be conducted shall be deemed an interpretation that applies an obligation that is not prescribed by relevant laws, and is an extensive interpretation without explicit regulations or reasonable ground, and is therefore not deemed appropriate. 

In conclusion, in this case, the project implementer can only hold a presentation in city A. 

Yes, two or more individuals may register a tourism accommodation business pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Tourism Promotion Act as joint business operators and obtain approval of business plan as prescribed by Article 15 (1) of the same Act. 

Under Article 4 (1) of the Tourism Promotion Act, it is regulated that a person who intends to engage in tourism accommodation business, etc. shall file for registration of such business with the relevant city mayor or provincial governor, etc. In addition, paragraph (5) of the Act stipulates that the matters necessary for procedures for the registration of tourism accommodation shall be prescribed by Ministerial Decree of Culture, Sports and Tourism. Also, Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act states that persons intending to register a tourism accommodation business shall submit an application for tourism business and a business plan, document certifying the ownership or real estate or right to use real estate to the city mayor or provincial governor and does not state otherwise, such as mandating that a single person should be the business operator when registering a tourism accommodation business or prohibiting the registration of two or more individuals as joint business operators. 

And under Article 7 of the Tourism Promotion Act, which regulates the grounds for disqualification for registration as a tourism business, personnel requirements such as “the number of business operators” are not prescribed as a ground for disqualification or registration, and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act mandates that individuals intending to register a tourism accommodation business shall submit a business plan, and the name and resident registration number and a document certifying the ownership of real estate if the applicant is a domestic resident, but does not restrict the requirements for business operators or the number of business operators for registering a tourism accommodation business. Furthermore, the purpose of the Tourism Promotion Act is to create an environment favorable to tourism, develop resources for tourism, and foster the tourism industry, and therefore allowing two or more joint business operators in the tourism accommodation business shall lead to attraction of investment and give way for diverse business operation methods, making it align with the legislative purpose of the Tourism Promotion Act. Considering such points, it shall be appropriate to deem that two or more individuals can be joint business operators in the tourism accommodation business pursuant to the Tourism Promotion Act and such joint business operators can register a tourism accommodation business and obtain approval of business plan. 

Moreover, when starting a new business, business registration is generally required pursuant to Article 168 of the Income Tax Act, and the fact that the Income Tax Act recognizes joint business operators in principle, as seen in the prescription of joint businesses in Article 2-2 (Scope of Tax Liability) and Article 43 (Special Cases concerning Calculation of Joint Business Income) of the Act, should be considered as well. 

In conclusion, it can be said that two or more individuals can become joint business operators and register a tourism accommodation business and obtain approval of business plan in accordance with Article 15 (1) of the Tourism Promotion Act. 

Yes, in this case a permission for change of use to a higher group pursuant to Article 19 (2) of the Building Act should be obtained.

Under the first sentence of Article 21 (3) of the Special Act on the Promotion of Venture Businesses and Article 14 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it is stipulated that notwithstanding Article 76 (1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 36 (1) of the Special Act on Promotion of Special Research and Development Zones, a person who has moved within the facilities for clustering venture businesses may establish an urban-type factory with a factory construction area of not more than 2,000 m2 among urban-type factories under subparagraph 1 of Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act to the extent that the structural safety is not threatened.

On the other hand, Article 19 (1) of the Building Act stipulates that any change in the use of a building shall be made in compliance with the building code for the changed use, and paragraph 2 (1) of the same Article prescribes that any person who intends to change the use of a building approved to use shall obtain permission to change the use of a building falling under the groups of facilities classified in the subparagraphs of paragraph 4 of the same Article to any group higher than the group. Also, under Article 14 (5) 2 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act which prescribes the groups of facilities, factories fall under groups of facilities for industrial purpose, etc., while subparagraph 6 (b) of the same paragraph classifies education and research facilities as groups of facilities for education and welfare. Therefore, when intending to change the use of the building falling under facilities for education and welfare to the use of factories classified as groups of facilities for industrial purpose, etc., a permission for change of use pursuant to Article 19 (2) of the Building Act should be obtained in principle because it is a change of use to a group higher than the group.

Because Article 21 (3) of the Special Act on the Promotion of Venture Businesses excludes the application of the regulation restricting change of use based on building code pursuant to Article 19 (1), not Article 19 as a whole, and Article 19 (2) of the said Act states that a person intending the change of use of a building should obtain permission or file a report, and prescribes the persons subject to permission or report of change of use and the procedures to obtain permission or file a report. In other words, because the contents of paragraphs (1) and (2) of the same Article are clearly different, Article 21 (3) of the Special Act on the Promotion of Venture Businesses can be deemed a regulation that exceptionally permits change of use within the facilities for clustering venture businesses notwithstanding the restrictions on change of use of a building pursuant to Article 19 (1) of the Building Act, but it is difficult to consider this as a regulation that grants exemption of the permission or report process for change of use under paragraph (2) of the same Article.

In addition, when a law prescribes regulations on certain principles and then stipulates regulations providing exceptions to such principles, the exceptions should not be exaggerated in interpretation and the interpretation should be stricter. However, Article 21 (3) of the Special Act on the Promotion of Venture Businesses should be strictly interpreted as an exception to the principles of change of use under Article 19 (1) of the Building Act prescribing that any change of the use of a building shall be made in compliance with the building code for the changed use, and the interpretation that the regulations on the persons subject to permission and report and the permission and report process shall be subject to exception in the same way as paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be considered an excessive extension of the regulations on special cases on a person who has moved within the facilities for clustering venture businesses in accordance with the Building Act, and therefore not considered appropriate.

Therefore, in this case, a permission for change of use to a higher group pursuant to Article 19 (2) of the Building Act should be obtained.

Yes. In this case, the surviving company should obtain permission for wastes treatment business pursuant to Article 25 (3) of the Wastes Control Act in order to continue to operate a wastes treatment business.

If the text of an Act is composed of relatively clear definitions, it can be said that a different interpretation method is unnecessary or should be used restrictively, in principle. And the first sentence of Article 33 (2) of the Wastes Control Act prescribes that "Where a wastes treatment business entity, etc. who is a corporation is merged by absorption with another corporation, establishes a new corporation after the merger with another corporation, or establishes a new corporation or is merged with another corporation after the division of waste treatment business, etc., a corporation surviving the merger or a corporation established by merger or division shall obtain permission from the Minister of Environment or the Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Ministerial Decree of Environment." In the second sentence of the same subparagraph, it is stated that "In such cases, the corporation surviving the merger or the corporation established by merger or division that obtained such permission shall succeed to the rights and obligations relating to permission for, approval of, registration of, or reporting on wastes treatment business, etc." Under subparagraph 8 of the same Article, "where the succession to rights and obligations is made under paragraph (1) or (2), the permission, approval, registration, or report regarding the previous wastes treatment business entity, etc. shall lose its effect" (main sentence). In this regard, where a wastes treatment business entity obtained permission for division pursuant to the first sentence of subparagraph 2 of the same Article, the newly incorporated company by division shall succeed to the rights and obligations relating to permission for, etc. waste treatment business, etc. pursuant to the second sentence of the same subparagraph and the main sentence of subparagraph 8 of the same Article, and where such rights and obligations are succeeded, the previous permission, etc. of waste treatment business entities, etc. shall lose its effect, and the surviving corporation is no longer deemed to possess a permission for valid wastes treatment business. Therefore, it shall be conforming to the texts of the Wastes Control Act to interpret that in order for a surviving corporation to continue to operate a wastes treatment business, permission for wastes treatment business prescribed by Article 25 (3) of the same Act should be obtained once again.

On the other hand, under Article 530-10 of the Commercial Act, a newly incorporated company by simple division, succeeding company after division, etc. shall assume the rights and obligations of the divided company as prescribed by a division plan. In this regard, if it is decided under the division plan that the surviving company and the newly incorporated company by division shall divide sections and both companies shall continue to operate a wastes treatment business, the newly incorporated company by division shall succeed the divided company’s rights and obligations within the scope prescribed by the division plan. In this regard, there can be arguments that the surviving company does not need to re-obtain permission for wastes treatment business under Article 25 (3) of the Wastes Control Act and can continue to operate such business. However, the purpose of the Commercial Act is to maintain and strengthen companies and guarantee corporate activities (for-profit activities) and therefore contribute to national economy, and the Act is a private law based on private autonomy. On the other hand, the Wastes Control Act is a public law based on publicity, the purpose of which is to contribute to enhancing the quality of people’s lives by restricting the emission of wastes and treating wastes in an eco-friendly manner. Because the two laws are separate independent laws with different basic concepts, the Commercial Act cannot apply preferentially over the Wastes Control Act and nor can the application of the Wastes Control Act be exempted without prescribed regulations, so such argument is not valid.

Consequently, in this case, the surviving company should obtain permission for division of wastes treatment business pursuant to Article 25 (3) of the Wastes Control Act in order to continue to operate a wastes treatment business.

Yes, an employee who had a child who was older than 8 years or in 3rd grade or higher in elementary school at the time of the enforcement of the amended Act, the employee can include two times the unused childcare leave period in the period of reduction of working hours during the childcare period pursuant to the proviso of Article 19-2 (4) of the Act.

According to Articles 19-2 (1) and(4) of the Act before partial amendment to Act no. 20521 on Oct. 22, 2024, an employee’s child had to be “aged 8 years or younger or in the 2nd grade or lower of elementary school” to be eligible to apply for reduction of working hours during the childcare period, which was identical to that of employees eligible to apply for childcare leave, and the period that can be included in the reduction of working hours during childcare leave was as follows: “where an employee who is eligible to apply for childcare leave pursuant to Article 19 (1) has not fully used such leave for a period of childcare leave under Article 19 (2), the remaining period shall be added to the period for reduction of working hours”. However, under the amended Act, the age range of the child was widened, stipulating that an employee’s child shall be “aged 12 years or younger or in the 6th grade or lower of elementary school” to be eligible to apply for reduction of working hours. The amended Act also stipulates that where an employee has not fully used the childcare leave, two times the remaining period shall be added to the period for reduction of working hours. Therefore, in this case, the issue is whether an employee who has had a child who was older than 8 years or higher than the 2nd grade of elementary school at the time of the enforcement of the amended Act is eligible for addition of two times the remaining period of unused childcare leave period to the period for reduction of working hours.

The main sentence of Article 19-2 (4) of the amended Act prescribes that the period of reduction of working hours during childcare period is not more than 1 year, while the proviso of the same subparagraph states that where an employee has not fully used childcare leave, two times the remaining period shall be added to the period for reduction of working hours. In other words, because there is no separate clause restricting the relevant regulation to employees who can apply for childcare leave or excluding the employees who cannot apply for childcare leave, it can be said that regardless of whether an employee can apply for childcare leave pursuant to the proviso of Article 19-2 (4) of the amended Act, where an employee has a child who is aged 12 or under or in the 6th grade or below of elementary school, he/she is eligible for application of reduction of working hours during childcare leave, and if he/she has not fully used the childcare leave, two times the remaining period can be added to the reduction of working hours during the childcare period.

Therefore, if an employee had a child who was older than 8 years or in 3rd grade or higher in elementary school at the time of the enforcement of the amended Act, the employee can include two times the unused childcare leave period in the period of reduction of working hours during the childcare period pursuant to the proviso of Article 19-2 (4) of the Act.

In this case, “the number of regular employees” under Article 38 (1) 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act means the number of regular employees who are newly employed by the factory or research facility after concluding the sale contract.

Where falling under the causes prescribed by the subparagraphs of Article 38 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act as delegated by the proviso of Article 29 (1) of the Act, it is exceptionally permitted to sell general property through a private contract. The purpose of this is to give permission for private contract when there is an inevitable reason or when the nature of a general property such as its location, form, or use makes it difficult to sell the property through an open competitive bid. Also, Article 38 (1) 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act prescribes a cause for sale of general property through a private contract as follows: where property is sold for the purpose of attracting a factory or research facility of a company which employs 30 or more regular employees residing in the relevant area or intends to procure 30% or more of raw materials from the area, which is a facility that meets the standards prescribed by ordinance of the local government, in order to promote the local economy.

However, when looking at the text of Article 38 (1) 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the dictionary meaning of “attract” is to “bring businesses, etc. to an area”, and it is stated that a private contract may be signed if general property is sold to attract a factory or research facility of a company that intends to “procure” 30% or more of raw materials from the relevant area, which clearly indicates that the portion of raw materials to be procured in the area is an objective to be reached by sale through a private contract. In this regard, the requirements on the number of regular workers should be interpreted as an assessment criteria to determine how much the objective of promoting the local economy by attracting a factory or research facility to the area has been accomplished.

Also, Article 38 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act was established as delegated by Article 29 (1) of the Act, which serves as the legal basis for the loan and sale of general property, and similar to Article 38 (1) 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, Article 29 (1) 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act which regulates the matters on the loan of general property as delegated by the same paragraph prescribes that general property can be loaned through a private contract if the loan is for the “attraction” of a facility that employs 10 or more regular employees residing in the relevant area and satisfies one of the items under the same subparagraph to promote the local economy, and also stipulates that the matters such as the detailed criteria for selection, selection procedure and method shall be determined and publicly announced by the Minister of the Interior and Safety. And considering the fact that Article 14 (2) of the Guidelines on Operation of Local Governments’ Public Property, which is a public notice by the Minister of the Interior and Safety legislated as delegated by the abovementioned Article of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, stipulates that “the number of regular employees residing in the relevant area” is an uation item to assess the relevant facility’s contribution to job creation, it will be valid to interpret that “the number of regular employees” under Article 38 (1) 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act is a standard to assess whether employment has increased after the sale of general property.

Therefore, in this case, “the number of regular employees” under Article 38 (1) 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act means the number of regular employees newly employed by a factory or research facility after a sales contract has been concluded.

In this case, the number of self-measurements on air pollutants falling under specified hazardous air pollutants is subject to note 9 of Attached Table 11 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act.

Pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Act, Attached Table 11 of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act prescribes the subject, items and method of self-measurement of pollutants emitted when a business operates emission facilities. According to the Article, it is stipulated that among businesses that automatically transfer the measurement results to the smokestack remote surveillance system control center, where class 3 vents without an automatic smokestack measurement device is measured only for the rear end of the prevention facility (table 2 (a) of the same Attached Table), the number of self-measurements shall be at least once every two months and at least once every quarter where the front and rear of the prevention facility are both measured (table 2 (b) of the same Attached Table).

However, according to note 1 of Attached Table 11 of the Enforcement Rules of Act, where specified hazardous air pollutants emitted are no less than the standards under Attached Table 8-2 of the said Enforcement Rule, self-measurement of the relevant pollutant should be conducted at least twice a month notwithstanding the aforementioned Attached Table (table 1 and tables 2 (a) and 2 (b)). Also, according to note 9 of the Attached Table, self-measurement should be conducted at least once a quarter where air pollutants were continuously within 30% of the permissible emission standards according to pollutant testing results for the previous year and measurements are taken for only the rear of the prevention facilities, and at least once every half-year where the front and rear of the prevention facilities are measured together. In this regard, the issue in this matter is whether the number of self-measurements on air pollutants falling under specified hazardous air pollutants is subject to note 1 of Attached Table 11 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act or note 9 of the same Attached Table.

In the Clean Air Conservation Act, “specified hazardous air pollutants” are included in “air pollutants”, and if the clauses defining matters related to air pollutants exclude or do not separately define specified hazardous air pollutants, matters related to air pollutants can be applied to specified hazardous air pollutants as well. Therefore, it can be said that note 9 of Attached Table 11 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act also applies to specified hazardous air pollutants.

Also, tables 1 and 2 of Attached Table 11 of the Enforcement Rules of the Clean Air Conservation Act classify places of business based on whether they automatically transmit measuring results to the smokestack remote surveillance system control center, and table 2 of the same Attached Table applies eased standards on the number of measurements compared to table 1 of the same Attached Table, and in notes 8 and 9 of the same Attached Table, the standards on self-measurement of tables 1 and 2 of the same Attached Table are additionally eased, with note 9 applying more eased standards compared to note 8. In this regard, in this case, if note 1 of the said Attached Table applies instead of note 9 of the Table, it will mean that the number of self-measurements of class 3 vents under note 2 of the Table outnumbers the self-measurements of class 3 vents under note 1 of the Attached Table by at least twice per month. Therefore, in this regard, applying note 1 of the Attached Table shall not be in compliance with the system of self-measurements prescribed under Attached Table 11 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act.

Consequently, in this case, note 9 of Attached Table 11 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act applies to the number of self-measurements for air pollutants falling under specified hazardous air pollutants.

The period of childcare leave that can be additionally used pursuant to the proviso of Article 19 (2) of the Act is not included in the period of reduction of working hours for the period of childcare leave that can be additionally used pursuant to the proviso of Article 19-2 (4) of the same Act.

In the proviso of Article 19-2 (4) of the Act which prescribes the period of reduction of working hours during the childcare period, it is regulated that where an employee who is eligible to apply for childcare leave has not fully used such leave for the period of childcare leave pursuant to the main sentence of Article 19 (2), two times the remaining period shall be added to the period of reduction of working hours. In this regard, it is clear that the period of childcare leave that can be added to the period of reduction of working hours during the childcare period applies only to the childcare leave period under the main sentence of Article 19 (2) of the same Act, and not to the childcare leave period that can be additionally used under the proviso of the same paragraph.

Also, the proviso of Article 19 (2) of the Act was newly inserted when the Act was partially amended to Act no. 20521 on Oct. 22, 2024 so that the period of childcare leave can be extended for both parents when they each use childcare leave in order to promote equal childcare participation and strengthen support for work-family balance for workers. With the aforementioned amendment, the proviso of Article 19-2 (4) of the same Act was amended as well, changing the period of childcare leave that can be added to the period of reduction of working hours during the childcare period from “the period of childcare leave pursuant to Article 19 (2) that has not been used” to “the period of childcare leave that has not been used among the period of childcare leave pursuant to the main sentence of Article 19 (2)”. As such, the proviso of Article 19 (2) of the Act prescribing the period of childcare leave was newly inserted to expand the period of childcare leave that workers can use, while the period of childcare leave that can be added to the period of reduction of working hours during the period of childcare remained unchanged, restricted to the period of childcare leave pursuant to the main sentence of Article 19 (2) of the Act. Based on such, it shall be appropriate to interpret that the period of childcare leave that can be added to the period of reduction of working hours during the period of childcare pursuant to the proviso of Article 19-2 (4) of the Act shall be restricted to the period of childcare leave according to the main sentence of Article 19 (2) of the same Act, and the additional period of childcare leave that can be used in accordance with the proviso of the same paragraph shall not be included in the period of childcare leave that can be added to the period of reduction of work hours during the childcare leave period.

In conclusion, the period of childcare leave that can be additionally used under the proviso of Article19 (2) of the Act is not included in the period of reduction of working hours during the childcare period that can be added under the proviso of Article 19-2 (4) of the same Act.

The owner of the relevant electrical installations cannot have an agent perform electrical safety management duties on his/her behalf pursuant to Article 22 (3) of the Electrical Safety Management Act and Article 26 (1) of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act.

Under Article 22 (1) of the Electrical Safety Management Act, it is prescribed that an electric utility business entity or an owner of an electric installation for private use should, in principle, appoint an electric safety manager for electric equipment. However, paragraph (3) of the same Article exceptionally stipulates that an owner or occupant of electric installations of or below the scale determined by Ministerial Decree of Trade, Industry and Energy may have the Korea Electrical Safety Corporation (subparagraph 1), an agent that is a business entity (subparagraph 2), or an agent that is an individual (subparagraph 3) perform the safety management duties on behalf of him or her, as an agent. Also, Article 26 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act classifies the scale of electric installations permitted according to the type of the electrical safety management agent. For example, subparagraph 1 of the same Article prescribes that the Korean Electrical Safety Corporation and agent businesses can perform electrical safety management duties for electric installations such as electric receiving equipment with less than 1,000 kw capacity (item a), emergency spare generator with less than 500 kw capacity (item d). As such, the items under subparagraph 1 of Article 26 of the Enforcement Rules of the Electrical Safety Management Act prescribe the scale of electric installations for which agent businesses can perform safety management duties classified by the type of electric installations such as electric receiving equipment, and solar power generation equipment among new and renewable energy generation equipment, which means that each electric installation should satisfy the scale standards by type of electric installation stipulated in each item of subparagraph 1 of Article 26 of the Enforcement Rules in order for an agent to perform electrical safety management duties for different types of electric installations.

However, in the case of the relevant electric installations, electric receiving equipment (800 kw) meet the scale standard “under 1,000 kw” under subparagraph 1 (a) of Article 26 of the Enforcement Rules of the Electrical Safety Management Act, but emergency spare generators (610 kw) do not meet the scale standard of “below 500 kw” under item (d) of the same subparagraph, so the relevant electric installations include electric installations for which an agent cannot perform electrical safety management duties. In this regard, a single agent cannot perform the said duties for all of the relevant electric installations on behalf of the owner.

Also, the purpose of the Electrical Safety Management Act is to protect the life and property of the people and ensure public safety by prescribing matters necessary for prevention of electrical disasters and safety management of electric installations (Article 1). In addition, under Article 22 of the Act, an electric utility business entity or an owner or occupant of electric installations for private use shall appoint an electrical safety supervisor (Article 1), while it is prescribed that electric safety management duties for electric installations for private use that is below a certain scale can be performed by an agent instead of an appointed electrical safety supervisor because such electric installations have a relatively low risk of electric installations-related accidents. In this regard, where part of several electrical installations satisfies the standards under the items of subparagraph 1 of Article 26 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act and part of the installations exceeds the standards, it does not align with the legislative purpose of the Act and the purpose of the relevant regulation to interpret that electric safety management duties for all of the electric installations can be performed by an agent pursuant to Article 22 (3) of the Act and subparagraph 1 of Article 26 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act.

In this regard, the owner of the relevant electric installments cannot have an agent business entity perform safety management duties for all of the relevant electric installations under Article 22 (3) of the Act and subparagraph 1 of Article 26 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act.

Substances obtained by physical extraction or purification of substances in their natural state are not excluded from “chemical substances” pursuant to subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the Act.

Under subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the Consumer Chemical Products and Biocides Safety Control Act, the term "chemical substance" means any elements, its compounds and substances obtained by an artificial chemical reaction thereto, and substances obtained by a chemical transformation, extraction or purification of substances in their natural state, so the text is unclear whether “chemical” modifies “extraction or purification” as well.

The legislative history of the regulation on the definition of “chemical substance” is as follows: 1) before wholly amended into Act no. 11862 on June 4, 2013, subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Hazardous Chemical Substances Control Act regulated that “chemical substance” means any element, its compounds and substances obtained by an artificial chemical reaction thereto, and substances obtained by extraction or purification of substances in their natural state; 2) The Act on Registration and uation of Chemical Substances was legislated as Act no. 11789 on May 22, 2013 and subsequently the Chemical Substances Control Act was wholly amended to Act no. 11862 on June 4, 2013. With such changes, the regulation on the definition of “chemical substance” in the two laws came to include the phrase “chemical transformation”; 3) With the regulation on the definition of “chemical substance” under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Act on Registration and uation of Chemical Substances as reference, the same regulation on the definition of “chemical substance” was newly inserted in subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the Consumer Chemical Products and Biocides Safety Control Act legislated as Act no. 15511 on March 20, 2018.

Based on such legislative history of the regulation on the definition of “chemical substances” the term “chemical” was added along with “transformation”, while “extraction” and “purification” were already being used in the regulations on the definition of chemical substance. In this regard, it should be regarded that “chemically” modifies only “transformation”, not “extraction” and “purification”.

In addition, the phrase “chemical transformation” was added to the regulation on the definition of “chemical substance” when the legal grounds for managing products containing chemical substances were established by legislating the Act on Registration and uation of Chemical Substances as Act no. 11789 on May 22, 2013, and the Consumer Chemical Products and Biocides Safety Control Act was legislated as Act no. 15511 on March 20, 2019 for the systematic safety management of products containing chemical substances such as consumer chemical products and biocides. In this regard, if the phrase “chemical transformation, extraction or purification of substances” is interpreted into the opposite meaning of “physical extraction or purification” of substances in their natural state and thereby concluding that substances obtained by the aforementioned method is excluded from the scope of “chemical substance”, such interpretation does not conform to the legislative purpose of the Act on Registration and uation of Chemical Substances and the Consumer Chemical Products and Biocides Safety Control Act, which have been amended over the years to strengthen the regulations on products containing “chemical substance”.

Also, under subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the Consumer Chemical Products and Biocides Safety Control Act, “chemical substance” means: 1) any element, its compounds and substances obtained in an artificial chemical reaction thereto; and 2) substances obtained by chemical transformation, extraction or purification of substances in their natural state. In this regard, even if a substance is not a “substance obtained by chemical transformation, extraction or purification of substances in their natural state”, but falls under “any element, its compounds and substances obtained in an artificial chemical reaction thereto”, it shall still be considered “chemical substance” under the same subparagraph. Therefore, it cannot be said that a substance is excluded from “chemical substance” under subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the same Act just because it is a substance obtained by physical extraction or purification of substances in their natural state.

In conclusion, a substance obtained by physical extraction or purification of substances in their natural state is not excluded from the scope of “chemical substance” pursuant to subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the Consumer Chemical Products and Biocides Safety Control Act.