본 브리핑은 중국, 인도, 일본 및 한국 내 최대 철강 기업의 기후 정책 관여 활동을 분석한다. 위 4개국의 철강 산업은 전 세계 철강 생산량의 70%를 차지한다. 본 브리핑은 일본과 한국 두 나라의 철강 업체와 관련 산업협회가 철강 탈탄소화 정책, 탄소 가격제, 배출권거래제, 온실가스 배출량 저감 목표, 에너지 믹스 전환 전략 등을 포함하는 광범위한 기후 정책에 영향력을 행사하는 활동에 적극적으로 관여하고 있다는 사실을 규명한 인플루언스맵(InfluenceMap)의 일본과 한국의 철강 부문에 대해 분석한 2022년 4월 보고서를 기반으로 한다.
인플루언스맵의 로비맵(LobbyMap) 데이터 플랫폼은 경제 규모 기준, 세계 최대 기업들을 기반으로, 전 세계 500개 이상의 기업과 250개 이상의 산업협회를 다룬다. 여기에는 미국, 유럽, 일본, 한국 등의 기업이 포함되며, 전 세계적으로 대상국의 숫자가 계속해서 확대되고 있다. 인플루언스맵은 전 세계적으로 기업의 정책 상호작용을 평가하는 과정에서 각 지역별로 적합한 방법론을 적용한다. 인플루언스맵은 기존 방법론과 기업 평가를 일본과 한국 기업에 성공적으로 적용했으며, 관련 결과는 일본과 한국의 온라인 데이터 플랫폼에서 확인할 수 있다. 이러한 내용은 일본과 한국 기업에 투자하는 글로벌 투자자와 현지 투자자들에 의해 광범위하게 활용되고 있다. 인플루언스맵은 현재 글로벌 기후 행동에 지대한 영향을 미치는 중국과 인도에 대한 방법론을 적용하는 작업을 진행하고 있다. 본 브리핑에서 다루는 중국과 인도 기업들의 프로필은 인플루언스맵의 방법론이 반영되어 있으나, 지역별 방법론이 확정될 때까지 잠정적인 평가로 공개되고 있다.
철강 부문의 산업 공정 직접 배출량과 전력 소비로 인한 간접 배출량은 전 세계 에너지 시스템이 배출하는 전체 이산화탄소의 10%를 차지한다. 국제에너지기구(IEA)는 화석연료 연소에 따른 배출량과 산업 공정 배출량을 하나로 묶어 ‘에너지 시스템 배출량’으로 정의한다. 산업용 원료(OECD에 따르면, 건설, 운송, 기계 부문이 전 세계 철강 수요의 70%를 차지함)를 공급하는 주체인 글로벌 철강 부문은 다른 산업 부문의 거센 탈탄소화 요구에 직면해 있다. 기후변화에 관한 정부간 협의체(IPCC)는 기후변화 완화에 관한 2022년 4월 보고서에서 철강 부문과 같은 난(難)감축 산업의 경우 ‘즉각적인 행동과 미래 탈탄소화를 위한 대비로 이어지는 종합적이고 순차적인 산업 정책 전략’이 요구된다고 지적했다.
PRI, IIGCC, Ceres 등의 투자자 대표 단체들이 공식화하는 투자자 기대는 기업들이 파리협정과 일치하는 기후 정책 입장을 채택하는 동시에 산업협회를 기업의 입장과 일치시키기 위한 강화된 거버넌스와 공시 절차를 시행할 것을 요구한다. 2022년 3월에 출범한 책임 있는 기후 로비에 관한 글로벌 스탠다드 (Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying)는 이러한 기대를 기반으로 하여 파리협정의 1.5℃ 목표를 기준으로 기업의 직·간접 정책 관여 활동을 평가하는 틀을 제시한다. 또한, 투자자 단체들 AIGCC, IIGCC, Ceres, IGCC는 2018년에 기업과 산업협회의 기후 정책 관여 활동에 대한 기대를 포함하여 철강 부문에 기대하는 기준을 제시한 철강업체들에 대한 투자자 기대 (Investor Expectations of Steel Companies) 도 발간한 바 있다.
인플루언스맵은 무엇이 관여 활동에 해당하는지를 판단하는 기준으로 유엔의 2013년 기업의 책임 있는 기후 정책 관여 활동을 위한 가이드 (Guide for Responsible Corporate Engagement in Climate Policy)를 참조한다. 여기에는 광고, 소셜 미디어, PR, 기업 후원 리서치, 감독기관 및 선출직 공무원들과의 직접 소통, 선거 및 정당 후원금, 정책 자문 위원회 참가 등이 포함될 수 있다.
증거 자료에 점수를 부여하는 방식과 관련하여, 인플루언스맵은 정부 정책 벤치마크와 과학기반 정책 벤치마크를 적용하여 기업의 정책 관여 활동에 관한 증거를 비교한다. 이를 통해, 지지 혹은 반대 정도는 기업의 입장과 벤치마크 간의 일치도에 의해 결정된다.
이에 덧붙여, 인플루언스맵은 기후 전환과 지속가능발전목표 간의 상호작용에 대한 IPCC의 분석을 바탕으로 적용한 벤치마크를 사용하여 개발도상국의 기후 정책 관여 활동을 평가한다. IPCC는 국제 금융과 기술 이전에 의해 뒷받침되는 개발도상국의 급속한 기후 전환이 지속가능발전과 유의미한 시너지를 내는 것으로 판단한다. 이러한 이유에서, 개발도상국의 경우 국제 원조의 조건과 정책 시행의 장애물을 극복하기 위한 역량 구축을 감안하여 적용된 점수를 부여하는 것을 전제로, 최상위 수준의 기후 목표가 개별 국가의 국부나 산업화 정도를 불문하고 모든 국가의 기업들과 산업협회들에 대한 모범적인 기준으로 간주된다.
인플루언스맵의 방법론과 벤치마크 그리고 지역별 차이에 관한 세부 정보는 별첨A에서 확인할 수 있다.
하단의 표2는 철강 부문 기업들이 본사가 소재한 국가(중국, 인도, 일본, 한국)에서 기후 정책에 관여하는 활동을 부정적 관여 활동(파리협정의 1.5°C 목표와 불일치하는 경우)과 긍정적 관여 활동(파리협정의 목표와 일치하는 경우) 사이의 범위에서 비교하고 있다. 아래 표는 대상 기업이 구체적인 기후 정책 분야에 얼마나 적극적으로 관여했는지도 보여 준다.
The Japanese steel sector displays the most active and negative engagement on climate policies. For instance, over many years it has systematically opposed regulated carbon pricing and emission trading schemes (ETS). Recent Japanese government deliberations on the introduction of a hybrid carbon pricing system that combines a ‘carbon levy’ with an undefined price level and voluntary emissions trading are conditionally supported by the Japan Iron and Steel Federation (JISF) and Nippon Steel as of early 2023.
While there are some cases of active support for national carbon neutrality targets among the steelmakers, there is also a considerable level of more ambiguous positioning, especially from Nippon Steel, the Korea Iron and Steel Association and Tata Steel. For instance, Nippon Steel did not welcome Japan’s 2030 GHG emission targets after their announcement in May 2021.
한국 철강 부문은 철강 부문 배출량을 포함하는 배출권거래제도에 광범위한 관여 활동을 하고 있다. 정책의 기후 목표를 약화시킬 가능성이 있는 조치로서 한국철강협회 (KOSA_)_는 철강 부문의 무상 배출권을 존속시킬 것을 요구하고 있으며, 포스코는 한국형 온실가스 배출권거래제(K-ETS)의 배출권 제도 개혁을 촉구하는 등 한국 철강 부문은 K-ETS를 전폭적으로 지지하지 않고 있다.
The Climate Action Tracker’s assessment of Policies & Action of countries against their fair share ranks China, India and Japan as ‘Insufficient’, while ranking South Korea as ‘Highly Insufficient’. In this context of similar levels of climate regulation in the first three countries, steelmakers in India and China have not opposed the introduction of carbon pricing or emissions trading in as active a manner as in Japan. In July 2021, the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA) appeared to support the participation of the iron and steel industry in emissions trading developed in China.
The Japanese and Korean steel companies have been the most vocal and oppositional with regards to the EU CBAM, while the Indian and Chinese steelmakers have been comparatively less negative or active on the policy.
아래 표3은 IPCC가 개략적으로 제시한 다양한 철강 탈탄소화 경로에 대한 철강 부문 기업들의 입장을 비교한다. 이 표는 산업 부문 전반의 탈탄소화와 사회 전반의 에너지 믹스 전환에 대한 기업들의 입장을 담고 있으며 개별 사업 모델에 관한 입장이나 경영 투자에 대한 평가는 제시하지 않는다. IPCC 발표 자료를 발췌하여 세부적으로 요약한 내용은 별첨2에서 확인할 수 있다.
표에서 좌우로 이동하면 철강 탈탄소화의 여러 측면에 대한 기업들의 입장을 확인할 수 있다.
| Company / Industry Association | Summary of Alignment with IPCC Pathways | Steel Decarbonization Policy | Low-Carbon Fuels in Steelmaking | Electrification of Industry | Hydrogen-reduced Steel | Material Efficiency/Scrap Recycling | Decarbonization of Power Generation Mix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPCC Guideline | n/a | Intensive production decarbonization policies are needed to accelerate the adoption of low-carbon steelmaking technologies. Broad and sequential policies that address multiple mitigation options can lead to effective emission reductions. Policies should be developed across domains to facilitate technology shifts and market creation. This will enable immediate action and future preparedness. | Decarbonizing steel production requires a mix of measures, including retrofitting existing facilities, implementing CCU and CCS technologies (with early scale-up a crucial factor), and transitioning to low- or zero-emissions production methods. For hydrogen to support decarbonization, it will need to be produced from zero-carbon or extremely low-carbon energy sources. Biomass-based coke production is potentially consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C. | The electrification of production processes is an important mitigation option. Direct reduction with hydrogen combined with heat generation through electricity is potentially consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C. To achieve electrification, industry must advance in technological development while ensuring a sufficient and affordable supply of low-emission electricity. | Hydrogen-based direct reduced ironmaking (DRI) can be nearly CO2-neutral with carbon-free hydrogen. Transitionally, methane or a mix of methane and hydrogen can be used. A combination of measures, including electrification, hydrogen DRI, CCU/CCS, and energy efficiency are needed for steel decarbonization. Hydrogen production improvements are needed for net-zero emissions at scale. | Integrated material efficiency, recycling, and production decarbonization policies are needed for very low to zero emissions steel. Material efficiency measures can reduce demand by 40%, and high-quality recycling for secondary production must be maximized for significant emissions savings (contingent on the availability of regional and global scrap supplies), while also requiring careful sorting and scrap management. | In IPCC-integrated models limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot, renewables make up on average 53.68% of the electricity generation mix by 2030 and reach 77.12% by 2050 globally. |
| Nippon Steel Corporation | While Nippon Steel has appeared to support the increased use of electric arc furnaces (EAF) and the development of hydrogen infrastructure, it appears to be misaligned with IPCC in its occasional ambiguity on decarbonizing hydrogen production, its support for the continued use of coking coal, as well as its support for thermal power and nuclear energy, at times seemingly over renewables. | Nippon Steel has strongly advocated for increased government investment to support steel decarbonization, while frequently remaining ambiguous on other policy solutions. Nippon Steel has called for the creation of international standards for green steel in line with Japan's circular economy roadmap over standards drafted by other countries. | Nippon Steel has supported a continued role for coking coal with CCUS in steelmaking, with ambiguities around a timeline for a transition from this to decarbonized production methods. It supports hydrogen and carbon-free power, although often remaining ambiguous about the decarbonization of hydrogen. | Nippon Steel has supported the increased use of electric arc furnaces (EAF), emphasizing the need for increased nuclear power to support the electrification of steelmaking. | Nippon Steel actively advocates for hydrogen infrastructure and government funding to support the development of hydrogen-reduction steelmaking. While it has specified support for green hydrogen on some occasions, it often remains ambiguous on decarbonizing hydrogen production. | Nippon Steel has supported the development of technologies and infrastructure for steel scrap, while stressing the costs. | Nippon Steel actively advocates for an increased role for nuclear power, often appearing to support it over renewable energy, citing cost and stability concerns for the latter. It has also supported a continued role for thermal power, including ammonia and biomass co-firing with coal, and coal conversion to Gas Turbine Combined Cycle (GTCC) without conditions for CCS. |
| JFE Steel | JFE Steel is partially aligned with IPCC guidelines in its support for various government policies for green hydrogen and electricity, electrification, and hydrogen-reduction steelmaking. There is partial misalignment in its support for a continued role for blast furnaces, its occasional ambiguity on decarbonizing hydrogen production, and its mixed positions on increasing the use of renewable energy. | Emphasizing the high costs involved with decarbonizing the industry, JFE Steel has strongly advocated for government-led investment and incentives to develop technologies and supply green hydrogen and electricity for steel production. It has also supported policies such as green public procurement. | JFE Steel has strongly advocated for government support for green hydrogen and carbon-free electricity, with occasional ambiguity around the decarbonization of hydrogen, but has also supported a continued role for blast furnaces alongside CCUS. It has also appeared to support ammonia and hydrogen over solar and wind energy to power steel production. | JFE Steel has recognized the importance of promoting electrification, while emphasizing concerns due to high electricity prices and the need for an inexpensive and stable power supply. | JFE Steel supports the development of hydrogen-reduction steelmaking, and has requested government support for green hydrogen and carbon-free electricity. It has occasionally supported hydrogen without specifying a position on its decarbonization. | No position detected by InfluenceMap | JFE Steel has taken mixed positions on the energy transition, supporting nuclear and renewable energy with ambiguity around timelines. |
| Japan Iron and Steel Federation (JISF) | JISF appears partially aligned with IPCC guidelines in its support for government policies promoting technology development for decarbonization, carbon-free hydrogen and power, and CCUS for hydrogen-reduction ironmaking using blast furnaces. However, it appears misaligned in its occasional ambiguity around decarbonizing hydrogen production, support for coking coal, support for thermal power and ambiguous position on the need to increase renewable energy. | JISF strongly advocates for government funding to support technological development to decarbonize the steel industry. It has suggested a policy package similar to the Green Deal to support R&D in Japan, and has also supported tax and public procurement policies. | JISF has advocated for tax exemptions and a continued role for coking coal in steelmaking, while also supporting hydrogen and carbon-free power, although often remaining ambiguous about the decarbonization of hydrogen and emphasizing high hurdles for technological development. | JISF has supported the increased use of EAFs, while emphasizing concerns such as high electricity prices. | JISF actively advocates for hydrogen infrastructure and government funding to support the development of hydrogen-reduction steelmaking, while often remaining ambiguous on decarbonizing hydrogen production, and emphasizing technical and cost difficulties. On the other hand, it has expressed some support for the use of carbon-free hydrogen, and has advocated for the government to create a CCUS roadmap to support hydrogen-reduction ironmaking using blast furnaces. | JISF appears to have limited engagement on scrap recycling policy, but has supported the expanded use of scrap. | JISF actively advocates for an increased role for nuclear power, often appearing to support it over renewable energy due to cost and stability concerns for the latter. It has also supported a continued role for thermal power in 2030, as well as the increased use of ammonia and hydrogen without conditions for CCS. |
| POSCO | POSCO appears partially aligned with IPCC guidelines in its support for the increased electrification of steel production. However, it shows misalignment in its occasional ambiguity around the need to decarbonize hydrogen production, and its support for thermal power such as LNG. It also appears to support ammonia and coal co-firing without clear conditions for phasing out coal in line with IPCC timelines. | POSCO has supported decarbonizing the steel industry through hydrogen-reduction steelmaking and other technology development, as well as government support for R&D. | POSCO has supported the introduction of LNG heavy duty vehicles when transporting steel products as a way to reduce carbon emissions in the steel production process. The company has also supported hydrogen as fuel material for carbon-intensive industries, including steel, however, it is unclear about decarbonizing hydrogen production. | POSCO has supported the increasing electrification of the steel industry using EAFs. | POSCO has supported hydrogen-reduction in steel without specifying a position on the decarbonization of hydrogen. | No position detected by InfluenceMap | POSCO has supported a long-term role for LNG in the energy mix without clear conditions for CCS. It has also advocated for ammonia and coal co-firing power plants without specifying a clear timeline on phasing down the proportion of coal in line with IPCC guidance. |
| Hyundai Steel | Hyundai Steel appears partially aligned with IPCC guidelines in its support for electrification and CCUS, and the increased use of offshore wind. Its position on phasing out fossil fuels from steel production was unclear. | Hyundai Steel has supported decarbonizing the steel industry through technology development, including electric arc furnaces and CCUS. | Hyundai Steel has stated support for the increased use of by-product gas from the blast furnace, but its position on the overall phaseout of coking coal or fossil fuels in the steel production was unclear. | Hyundai Steel has supported the electrification of the steel industry via the increased use of EAFs and CCUS. | No position detected by InfluenceMap | No position detected by InfluenceMap | Hyundai Steel has called for policy measures to increase the use of offshore wind power in South Korea. |
| Korea Iron and Steel Association (KOSA) | KOSA appears partially aligned with IPCC guidelines in its support for electrification, while it appears to be misaligned in its potential lack of support for renewable energy and scrap steel use, and ambiguity around decarbonizing hydrogen. | KOSA has called for government-level attention and financial support for decarbonizing the steel industry, including steel decarbonization core technology development facilities. | KOSA stated that providing hydrogen and renewable energy to operate steelmaking facilities would be costly in terms of infrastructure building and operation. | KOSA has supported EAFs and the electrification of the steel industry. | KOSA has supported hydrogen-reduction steelmaking technology and government support for hydrogen infrastructure with no clarity on decarbonizing hydrogen production. | KOSA has stressed technical feasibility of using scrap steel in EAFs, with no clear position on potential policy solutions. | No position detected by InfluenceMap |
| Tata Steel | Tata Steel appears partially aligned with IPCC guidelines in its support for electrification and for policy measures to decarbonize the steel sector including increasing the use of scrap recycling. On the other hand, potential misalignments exist in its support for coking coal and fossil gas in steel production, as well as advocacy for tax cuts on petrol. | Tata Steel appears to support policy measures to decarbonize the steel sector, and has stressed the risks of job losses and carbon leakage without government policy support. | Tata Steel has supported transitioning the low-carbon technologies for steel production, but also advocates for measures to prolong the role of coking coal and fossil gas. | Tata Steel takes supportive positions on the electrification of the steel sector, including supporting EAFs. | Tata Steel supports the use of hydrogen to decarbonize steel production, however does not provide a clear indication if this is specific to green hydrogen. It also stressed the limited opportunities in the short-term for developing green hydrogen to achieve emission reductions in the steel sector. | Tata Steel supports policies to increase scrap steel recycling in India, including the Steel Scrap Recycling Policy and Vehicle Scrappage Policy. | Tata Steel has taken mixed positions on transitioning the power mix. The company supported the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, but contrastingly advocated for tax cuts for petrol and diesel. |
| JSW Steel | JSW appears partially aligned with IPCC guidelines in its support to decarbonize electricity production, and to develop green hydrogen and renewable energy. It appears to support recycling scrap steel, but provided limited information on its position on policies regarding this. It appears misaligned in its support for a continued role for fossil fuels in steel production. | JSW appears to support the decarbonization of the steel sector, while advocating for government funding to tackle economic and technological feasibility. The company has also called for national decarbonization roadmaps to help accelerate the decarbonization of hard-to-abate sectors in line with achieving net-zero by 2050. | JSW Steel has advocated for a continued role for fossil fuels in steel production. | No position detected by InfluenceMap | JSW Steel supports green hydrogen production and advocates for policy support to be scaled up, but stresses this will be in the long-term. The company also highlights the need for clean hydrogen technologies until green steel production is market-ready. | The company seems to be supportive of recycling scrap steel, but provides limited information on its position on policy measures for this. | JSW Steel supports measures to decarbonize the electricity mix, including a phase out of fossil fuels and reform of fossil fuel subsidies. The company has also advocated for measures to develop renewable energies, specifically solar power. |
| Indian Steel Association (ISA) | The Indian Steel Association appears partially aligned with IPCC guidelines in its support for various policies to decarbonize steel and its advocacy for renewable energy, electrification, scrap recycling, and green hydrogen. It appears misaligned in its support for continued roles for coking coal, blast furnaces, and fossil fuels such as petrol and diesel. | The Indian Steel Association appears to support a range of policies to decarbonize the steel sector, including incentives and subsidies for green steel production. | The Indian Steel Association appears to support measures to continue the use of coking coal for steel production, and supports the long-term role of blast furnace steel production, stating that zero-emission options are not market-ready. The association also appears to support the use of fossil gas in steel production. | Indian Steel Association advocates for a greater role of renewable energy and use of scrap-based EAF. | The association supports India's National Hydrogen Mission and Green Hydrogen Policy to develop green hydrogen production for the decarbonization of the steel sector, however it has emphasized that green steel will not be market competitive in the short-term. | The association appears to support steel recycling policies, including India's vehicle scrapping policy to enable the recycling of scrap steel. | The Indian Steel Association appears to support measures to continue the use of fossil fuels, including the removal of the coal cess and duties on petrol and diesel. |
| Baowu Steel Group | Baowu appears partially aligned with IPCC guidelines in its support for renewable energy and green hydrogen. It is misaligned with the IPCC in its support for natural gas and coking coal in steel production, as well as the continued use of blast furnace production over a transition to electric arc furnaces. | No position detected by InfluenceMap | Baowu supported transition from fossil fuels to renewables and green hydrogen. However, it also supported the use of natural gas in steel production and called for policy support for coking coal. | Baowu appears mostly unsupportive of transitioning from the blast furnace method to EAFs, citing economic concerns, and instead supports technological improvements to blast furnace for emissions reduction. | Baowu has supported using green hydrogen as the reducing agent in steelmaking. | No position detected by InfluenceMap | Baowu supported an expanded role for green hydrogen, whilst also referring to natural gas as a low-carbon energy source desirable in the new energy system. |
| HBIS Group | HBIS appears misaligned with IPCC guidelines due to its support for the use of natural gas as well as hydrogen produced with coal, without specifying a position on their decarbonization. | No position detected by InfluenceMap | HBIS supported using natural gas and hydrogen in steelmaking, without specifying the need to deploy CCS and decarbonize hydrogen production. | No position detected by InfluenceMap | HBIS supported using hydrogen as a reducing agent in steelmaking, however, it appears to support hydrogen produced from coal. | No position detected by InfluenceMap | HBIS supported an increased role for hydrogen and natural gas in the energy mix, without stating the need to decarbonize hydrogen production and deploy methane abatement measures. |
| Beijing Shougang Corporation | While Shougang appears partially aligned with IPCC guidelines in its support for hydrogen reduced steel and recognition of electric arc furnaces, it has stressed concerns on technical development of hydrogen and has not specified the need to decarbonize hydrogen. | No position detected by InfluenceMap | No position detected by InfluenceMap | Shougang stated Basic Oxygen steelmaking process will remain the dominant method, though at the same time predicts an increased role for EAFs in the future. | Shougang supported transitioning towards hydrogen-reduced steel as a means to carbon neutrality, whilst citing concerns over technological difficulties. | No position detected by InfluenceMap | No position detected by InfluenceMap |
| China Iron and Steel Association | CISA's support for renewable energy and policy support for electric arc furnaces appears to be aligned with IPCC guidelines, however there appears to be potential misalignment in its ambiguity around the decarbonization of hydrogen. | No position detected by InfluenceMap | The association supported renewables and hydrogen for steelmaking, but has not communicated an explicit position on the need to decarbonize hydrogen production. | The association supported investment and policy support for EAF technology, but at the same time is supportive of technological improvement to blast furnaces as a means to reduce emissions. | The association is generally supportive of hydrogen as a reducing agent in steelmaking, without communication on the need to decarbonize hydrogen. | No position detected by InfluenceMap | No position detected by InfluenceMap |
아시아 철강 기업들은 철강 부문 탈탄소화를 위한 연구에 있어서 정부의 투자와 유인책을 전반적으로 지지한다. 일본의 철강 기업들은 녹색 공공 조달 정책을 지지하고 있다. 그럼에도 이 지역의 철강 기업들은 고비용, 저탄소 대안의 기술적 타당성, 고용 현안에 관련된 우려를 강조하여 철강 부문의 저탄소 전환에 비판적인 것으로 나타났다.
어떠한 아시아 철강 기업도 제철 공정에서 화석연료를 단계적으로 퇴출시키는 방안을 확실하게 지지하지 않았다. 한국의 철강 기업들을 제외한 모든 국가의 철강 기업들이 제철 부문에서 코크스 사용을 연장하는 정부 지원을 요구하고 있다.
