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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in the trial at the trial, there is no error in the judgment of the first instance as alleged by the Plaintiff as the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following matters, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

The following shall be added to the fourth Schedule below the second Schedule of the judgment of the first instance:

D. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the determination of a road zone on June 2, 2017, stating that “The instant determination of a road zone was null and void since it did not entirely conduct an environmental impact assessment on the K company’s basis,” and on June 2, 2017, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the instant road zone’s determination cannot be deemed as having any significant and objective apparent defect, as it is difficult to achieve the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system, and it cannot be deemed that the degree of the defect was not different from that of the failure to conduct the environmental impact assessment, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a significant and objective apparent defect in the determination of the instant road zone.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court (Chuncheon)2017Nu591, but the said appeal was dismissed, and the Plaintiff appealed as the Supreme Court Decision 2018Du531777, but the final appeal became final and conclusive.”

2. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.