Attorney Kim ----, -- of the plaintiffs

Law Firm -, Attorneys-----, -

Law Firm -, Attorney ---

Law Firm -, Attorneys --

Law Firm -, Attorneys-----, --

Law Firm -, Attorneys --

Law Firm ---- Attorney ---

Law Firm -, Attorneys --

Law Firm -, Attorneys-----, ---

Law Firm -, Attorneys-----, ---

Law Firm -, Attorneys --

Law Firm --- Attorney --

Attorneys--------, ---, ---, ---, ----, ---;

Litigation Performers;

2. Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration;

Litigation Performers;

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant-Appellant]

Law Firm, Attorney Park Jae-soo

Attorney in charge of Government Legal Service

Daejeon Daejeon Woo-dong, Daejeon san 6-2

President;

Law Firm, Attorney Lee -

Law Firm Law Firm

Government Law Firm Corporation (Attorney Park Jae-soo)

Attorney Lee In-bok,

A. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the revocation of the Government's basic plan against the defendant of the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and the revocation of each disposition stated in the list of dispositions under attached Form 2.

B. Among the plaintiffs, the lawsuit seeking cancellation of each disposition stated in the list of standing to sue in attached Table 4 shall be dismissed, except for the plaintiffs listed in the list of standing to sue in attached Table 4, and the other plaintiffs' list of standing to sue in each disposition shall be dismissed.

C. Among the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants stated in the list of plaintiffs standing to sue by attached Form 3 are dismissed.

D. However, the disposition Nos. 13 through 27 in the list of standing to sue in attached Form 3 written by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs is unlawful in all dispositions of Nos. 13 through 27 in the list of standing to sue in attached Form 3, and the list of standing to sue in the same section written by the head of Si/Gun/Gu.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by each party, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The defendant shall indicate 20 sections for the 4 River Plux Plan (the 4 major river project schedule) announced by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on September 25, 2009 and 20 sections for the 19 Blux River Plux Project on November 23, 2009 (the 20 sections for the construction under this Act shall be limited to the number of the sections for the construction), 22 sections (the 22 sections (the 30 sections), 30 sections (the 20 sections), 5 sections (the 30 sections), 16 sections ( the 19 sections (the 5 and 1 districts), 19 sections (the 3rd and 1 districts), 25 sections (the 3rd and 25 sections), 25 sections (the 25th sections and 27 sections), 25 sections (the 25th sections and 25th sections), and 3 sections (the 25th sections and 25 sections), respectively, on February 12, 2010.

The head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration shall revoke 18 construction sections (2 & 1 districts), 20 sections (20,000), 22 sections (older, 3,00), 23 sections (older 3,30), 24 sections (older 3, 30 sections) 32 sections (older 3,00), 33 sections (older 4), 21 sections (former, Residential, and 33 sections) 29, 29, 29, 34, 36 sections (Seoul and 3,000), 24, 36 sections (Seoul and 4,000), 36 sections (Seoul and 4,000), 36 sections (Seoul and 5,000), 21 sections (Seoul and 5,000), 36 sections (Seoul and 36,000,000) 12 sections and 35,000 sections (Seoul and 22 sections).

(a) A summary of and an implementation process for the four-class suicide project;

1) A project for the improvement of the fourth river (hereinafter referred to as the "fourth river project") is a project implemented in a systematic, intensive management and operation to prevent flood and droughts, restore and utilize the river birth system, and promote balanced regional development, regional economy, and culture and tourism (see Article 2 of the Regulations on the Organization and Operation of the fourth river life promotion headquarters) among projects implemented for the fourth river, such as Han River, the Nakdong River, the Geum River, the Geum River, the Geum River, and the Yeongsan River, in accordance with the River Act, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (hereinafter referred to as "the fourth river project").

2) The Balanced National Development Committee (as Article 22 of the Special Act on Balanced National Development was amended by Act No. 9629 on April 22, 2009, its name was changed to that of the Regional Development Committee) decided on December 15, 2008 to promote four major projects as Korea-type Green New Zealand project.

3) Under the supervision of the Korea Institute of Construction Technology, which is a specialized research institute in the water-related field, the Institute of Cultural Tourism, etc. started to establish a four-dimensional master plan (hereinafter referred to as “four-party master plan”) on December 15, 2008 by participating in the cultural tourism research institute, etc.

4) Around February 2009, the Fourth River Planning Group was established under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries for the promotion of the fourth River Projects. Around April 2009, the four major River Projects was expanded to the "Center for the Promotion of the Four River-Lone".

5) A regional development committee, Green Growth Committee, the National Building Committee, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries held a four lecture franchise joint conference around April 2009, held a 12 regional briefing sessions around May 2009, the expert group’s advice recommended by the relevant ministries, the two related academic conferences, such as the Water Environment Association, the Water Resources Association, and the public gathering in which experts and citizens participate.

6) On June 8, 2009, four parts, including the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, the Ministry for Food, Sports and Tourism, and the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, such as the Ministry of Food, Transport and Maritime Affairs, decided and announced the fourth platform in order to present the basic direction for the fourth lecture project. The fourth platform Promotion Headquarters published and distributed the final report on August 24, 2009.

(b) Contents of the four master plans;

(i)the vision and objectives of the four major lecture projects;

The four major projects are aimed at preparing for climate change, ② natural and human coarization, ③ re-production of national land, ④ balanced regional development, and establishment of the foundation for green growth.

ii)the task of the four major lecture projects;

The four major river projects are presented as five major tasks such as ① fundamentally resolving water shortage and flood damage, ② improving water quality, and creating sound aquatic ecosystems as river uniforms, ③ improving the leisure culture and quality of life of the people, ④ towing the regional economy in the green New Dent project, ⑤ enhancing national competitiveness as the global scale for water management.

(iii)specific implementation plans for the four major lecture projects by tasks;

(A) measures to prevent flood damage;

For the impact of climate change and the increase of flood control capacity of 9.20 million cubic meters in preparation for floods of more than 200 km, ① flood fall through dredging of sedto (0.570 million cubic meters in Han River, 4.40 million square meters in Han River, 0.550 million cubic meters in Geum River, 0.30 million cubic meters in Geum River), ② the increase of red control capacity due to the installation of five flood control stations and river mouth storage stations, ③ the increase of flood control safety by the reinforcement of the old bank, ④ the increase of flood discharge by the increase of flood discharge by the increase of flood discharge by 620 km, ⑤ the increase of 96 agricultural reservoirs, the flood control effect by the means of securing water through the installation of three dams and small-scale dam construction, and the improvement of water flow of the water flow of the water flow by the installation of the stream.

(B) securing of abundant water resources to prepare for water shortage;

In order to increase the volume of water secured by 1.3 billion cubic meters in preparation for the shortage of water in the future (80 million cubic meters, 1.00 billion cubic meters in cubic meters in 201) and droughts, ① the installation of 16 multi-functional water (the flood) (the flood) (3), the installation of 16 multi-functional river, 8 Geum River, 3 Geum River, 2, and 2 of Yeongsan River), the prevention of the fall in the level of groundwater, ② the removal of regional water shortage due to small and medium-scale dam construction, ③ the increase in the volume of water flow and flow of the main stream are planned.

(C) water quality improvement and ecological restoration;

In order to achieve early 2012 the "water available for water" (I water supply, BOD1) 3mg/L, which was initially aimed at 2015, the expansion and advancement of environmental infrastructure facilities such as the systematic management of 34 basins with high pollution level, the advancement of the standards for the protection of environmental infrastructure facilities, 353 T-P2) reduction measures, the development of ecological river 929m, the riparian ecological belt creation, etc.

D) the creation of a complex space with local residents;

In order to actively utilize the riverside space left as a space for life centered on the national land, ① creation of leisure space by installing resting facilities, such as parking lots, toilets, drinking fountains, bicycle storage zones, convenience facilities, such as convenience facilities, sperm, events, outdoor tablers, amusement/sports facilities, and nature observation facilities, ② creation of bicycle lane 1,728km connecting upstreams, ③ deep urban regeneration during the improvement of waterside accessibility and waterside, ④ diversified utilization, creation of beautiful waterside space, etc.

E) Do-centered regional development

In parallel with the four major rivers, ① the maintenance of the water control environment, eco-friendly water, culture, tourism, etc. of the Do river (local rivers, small rivers, etc.) by comprehensively taking into account the water control environment, water-friendly water, tourism, etc. of the local river, and the major urban sections are included in the development of cultural contents for four major rivers where culture flows, ② the development of cultural tourism contents for four major rivers where culture flows, ③ the development of rural development projects in a village with favorable development conditions of the 4 major river, ③ the development of rural water villages in the future by comprehensively supporting the improvement of the system and the development of programs to induce the development of the village, ④ the improvement of the water basin in the four major river basin, ⑤ the improvement of the forest basin in the area of the river basin, ⑤ the improvement of the 4 major river basin water resources in the surrounding areas, and the activation of the 4 major river basin, etc. through the urban development of the 4th river basin and the urban development of the 4 major river basin through the urban development of the water reservoir industry.

(iv)the scope of the four major lecture projects;

The four major river projects are largely divided into this project, direct connection project, and connected project. The project shall be implemented by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Environment, for the control of floods and the securing of water, but its objectives are to complete 2011 (2012 in cases of dams, reservoirs, etc.). The direct guidance project aims to complete 2012 as a private project for the maintenance of the national rivers of 13 major islands and the expansion of sewage treatment facilities. The connection project is implemented annually in accordance with the plan of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, the Ministry of Knowledge Economy, the Ministry of Knowledge Economy, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Environment, and the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Environment, and the Ministry of Environment. Han River is the Han River, the Southern River, the Han River, the Han River, the Seo River, the Seo River, the Seo River, the Seo River, the Nam River, the Nam River, the Nam River, and Seo River, the river.

5) Project costs for four major courses

The total project cost of the four major projects shall be approximately KRW 22.20 billion ( KRW 16.90 billion in this project, KRW 5.30 billion in direct project), and the entire sections of the four major projects shall be divided into 267 sections, taking into account the scale of the project, administrative district, convenience in integrated management, etc.

6) Nature of the master plan

In the final report of the four-party master plans, the four-party master plans and the four-party master plans, which are formulated by the four-party master plans to systematically promote the projects related to lectures and surrounding areas, indicate that the specific contents may be adjusted in the course of design and construction, and, if necessary, the relevant ministries’ legal plans are adjusted to ensure that the four-party master plans can be closely connected with the four-party master plans.

(c) Circumstances of each of the dispositions in this case in order to promote the Nakdong River Project.

1)The project for the franchisium (hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case") under the 4th Tranchisium is divided into two zones with regard to the use and development of the Nakdongdong River. One zone (hereinafter referred to as the "first project of this case") extends the franchisium branch of Busan Shodong-dong, Gyeongdong-dong, Busan from the main stream of the Nakdongdong-dong river at the time of the extension (the extension, total length) to the 12.14 km branch of the franchisium franchisium franchisium in the 1 region, the two zones (hereinafter referred to as the "second project of this case"), the two zones are located (hereinafter referred to as the "two zones"), the two zones are the franchisium franchisium in the 1 region of the 1 region, and the franchisium franchisium will be the franchisium of the 1 region in the 2 region.

2) 구체적으로는 낙동강 유역에, ① 홍수조절능력 6.1억㎥ 증대를 목표로 한 홍수방 어 대책으로 퇴적토 준설( 하도정비 4.4억㎥), 영주댐 건설( 약 0.8억㎥), 농업용 저수지 증 고 (1.9억m), 낙동강 하굿둑 배수문 증설, 합류부 대책( 도류제 설치), 노후제방 보강(335 ㎞ )을, ② 용수확보량 10.2억㎥ 증대를 목표로 한 물확보 방안으로 다기능 보 8개(함안 보 , 합천보, 달성보 , 강정보, 칠곡보, 구미보, 낙단보, 상주보) 설치(6.7억m), 중소규모 댐 (영주댐, 보현댐) 건설(2.5억㎡ ) 및 안동~임하댐 연결, 농업용 저수지 31개 증고(1.0억 ㎡ )를, ③ 수질개선과 생태복원 방안으로 전체 22개 중권역 중 10개를 중점관리 유역 으로 지정하여 2012년까지 BOD 기준 좋은 물 비율 96%(2006년 82%), TP(총인) 농도 기준 0.089㎎/ℓ(2006년 0.130㎎/ℓ ) 달성, 74개의 하수 · 폐수처리장 설치와 179개의 TP처리시설 보강 등 환경기초시설 확충 및 고도화, 23개의 빗물침투 저류시설 · 생태유 수지와 33개의 농촌둠벙 · 생태습지 등 비점오염원 관리대책, 오염사고 방지를 위한 9 개의 완충저류시설 설치, 15㎞의 하천 내 농경지 정리 및 생태습지 조성, 수계 내 407 ㎞의 생태하천조성 등을, ④ 지역주민과 함께하는 복합공간 창조를 위한 방안으로 743 ㎞의 자전거도로 설치 , 다기능 보를 이용한 수면확보를 통하여 친수성 제고를, ⑤ 강 중심의 지역발전을 위한 방안으로 낙동강에 유입되는 862㎞의 지방하천 148개소의 단 계적 정비 등을 하는 것을 주요 내용으로 하고, 전체를 50개 공구로 나누어 시행하고 있으며, 총 사업비는 약 5조 9,379억 원이라고 피고 측이 밝히고 있다 .

3) The head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration, who is delegated with the authority by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, was in accordance with the detailed plan for the project in this case, and in accordance with Article 27 of the River Act, notified the implementation plan for the river work (revision) as stated in the following Table 1> (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition 1 through No. 27" according to the sequence of each public notice written in Table 1).

The public notification and disposition of the execution plan of each river work by the head of Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

4) Meanwhile, on September 25, 2009, the result of the National Policy Coordination Council on September 25, 2009, the Intervenor joining the Defendant decided to invest in and implement the business of one section among the four major courses as its own business.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article 10 of the former Korea Water Resources Corporation Act (amended by Act No. 9758 of Jun. 9, 2009; hereinafter the same), the Intervenor requested the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs to prepare and approve an implementation plan for the project of this case among the business of this case, 5, 16, 18 through 25, 29 through 34, and 36 sections, and the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs approved and publicly notified the modification of the implementation plan and the implementation plan for each project, including the entry in the table 2 below (hereinafter referred to as "disposition 1 or 2" according to the sequence of each approval and notice stated in the table 2, and hereinafter referred to as "each of this case").

The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall approve and publicly notify each project implementation plan by the defendant.

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 8, Gap evidence 2-1 through 6, Gap evidence 23-1 through 8, Gap evidence 24-1, 24-2, Gap evidence 25-1 through 15, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 10-1, 27, Eul evidence 64-1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings;

(a) Eligibility for appeal against the Government master plan;

1) Around September 2009, the plaintiffs announced the government's basic plan called the four master plans by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. The above government's basic plan not only violates the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the River Act, the National Finance Act, the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, etc., but also claims revocation of the above master plan by asserting that there was an error of deviation from and abuse of discretionary authority. Accordingly, the defendants are not directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, and the establishment and announcement of the four master plans do not constitute an administrative disposition that is the subject of an appeal litigation. Thus, this part of the lawsuit seeking revocation of the above master plan is unlawful and safety defense

2) Therefore, with respect to whether the above government’s basic plan is qualified for an appeal litigation, the disposition of an administrative agency subject to appeal litigation is, in principle, an act of an administrative agency’s public law, and refers to an act directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations with respect to a specific matter, or directly causing other legal effects. Thus, an act of not causing a direct legal change on the legal basis of the other party or related persons, such as internal decision-making by an administrative agency, does not constitute an act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Order 2010Du111, Apr. 21, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10578, May 17, 2002).

In light of the details and contents of the promotion of the four master plans as seen earlier, the four master plans for the four master plans and the basic direction of the four master plans for the four master plans for the systematic implementation of the four master plans and related projects in the surrounding areas. This merely presents the basic direction of the projects inside the administrative flag and does not constitute an administrative disposition that directly affects the rights and obligations of the people.

3) Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the Government's basic plan among the lawsuit of this case is not an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, and therefore, this part of the defendants' defense is justified.

(b) the period for filing the suit; and

1) The Defendants filed a lawsuit on the claim for revocation of a disposition No. 9 or 12, among the instant lawsuit, with the aim of filing the lawsuit period, and thus, constitute an unlawful defense and defense. Therefore, we examine whether the Plaintiff’s application for revocation of a disposition No. 9 or 12, which was filed by the Plaintiff as the claim for alteration (additional) of the purport of the claim on May 13, 2010, is lawful.

2) In a case where an administrative disposition is taken by a public notice, the other party to the disposition is an unspecified number of persons, and the effect of the disposition is uniformly applied to many and unspecified persons. As such, a person interested in the administrative disposition is deemed to have been aware of the administrative disposition on the day when the public notice takes effect regardless of whether the person was actually aware of the fact that the public notice was made. According to the proviso of Article 8(2) of the Private Management Regulations, except as otherwise expressly provided in other statutes and public notice documents, a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disposition shall be filed within 90 days after the public notice takes effect (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du3847, Apr. 14, 2006).

However, the date of notice of Disposition 9 or 12 is as seen earlier (see Table 1). As such, each of the above dispositions took effect on February 11, 2010, when five days have passed since the notice was issued, as a situation in which the general public is able to know its content. It is evident that the lawsuit on Disposition 9 or 12 was filed on May 13, 2010, which is the day following the lapse of ninety days from February 12, 2010, counting from February 12, 2010.

3) Therefore, since the lawsuit on the disposition 9 through 12 among the lawsuit in this case is inappropriate to have been filed with the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit, this part of the defendants' defense is with merit.

(c) Loss in a lawsuit's interest;

Since the Defendants’ claim for the revocation of the First Disposition or 8 among the instant lawsuit is a non-existent disposition after the revocation or withdrawal of the disposition, the lawsuit seeking the revocation is unlawful, and thus, the instant lawsuit is deemed unlawful.

On the other hand, when an administrative disposition is revoked or withdrawn, such disposition becomes void, and a revocation lawsuit against an administrative disposition whose effect is invalidated is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010).

However, in the case of Disposition 1 through 8, the Defendant Busan Regional Land Management Agency was a project implementer in the past, but the Defendant’s Intervenor decided to participate in the instant project, and again established an implementation plan as the project implementer, and the Defendant’s Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs decided to approve and publicly notify a new implementation plan on November 23, 2009 with respect to the relevant project as seen earlier.

If so, it is reasonable to view that the dispositions No. 1 through No. 8 have lost its validity by ex officio revocation or invalidation due to the change of the project implementer and the new disposition on the same project section (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Nu91, Dec. 26, 1973).

Therefore, the defendants' defense of this part of the defense against the safety of this case is unlawful because the lawsuit against the first disposition or the eighth disposition is against an administrative disposition that has lost its validity, and therefore, it is inappropriate for the defendants to have no benefit of lawsuit. [This part of the defense against the safety of this case is justified, since the execution record is one form of a temporary office, and the completion completion date is from October 2, 2009 to February 2010, the pertinent construction is deemed completed as of the closing date of argument, and there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition where construction is completed upon the public notice of the project implementation plan (amended) (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du18409, Apr. 26, 2007).

(d) Standing to sue (existence of interests legally protected as a third party to a disposition);

1) A third party who filed a lawsuit seeking revocation on the ground that his/her own environmental interest is or is likely to be infringed upon by an administrative disposition is not the other party, and a third party has standing to sue to prove that his/her exchange interest is protected individually, directly, and specifically by the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations, i.e., the interests protected by the laws and regulations based on the administrative disposition, and in cases where the scope of the rights expected to be affected by the business, such as the act done by the administrative disposition, is specifically defined in the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations, it may be anticipated that the residents within the affected area will cause direct and serious environmental damage. Such environmental benefits are the direct and concrete interests individually protected by the individual residents, and such environmental benefits are acknowledged as being infringed or threatened with the environmental interest protected by the law, barring special circumstances, and residents outside the affected area are recognized as standing to sue by being recognized as being protected by the said disposition, and are likely to infringe or be protected by the law, 201.

In light of the above legal principles, Article 32 (1) of the River Act provides that "if a river works implementation plan is established and announced, it shall be deemed that development activity permission has been granted under Article 56 (1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act," and Article 18 (1) of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act provides that "if a person has been granted the approval of an implementation plan, it shall be deemed that the above development permission has been granted." The National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that each disposition of this case shall be the Act related to each disposition of this case, and Article 56 (1) [Attachment 1-2] subparagraph 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act [Attachment 1-2] subparagraph 1 (b) of Article 56 (1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that "no environmental pollution caused by water pollution in the relevant area and its surrounding area shall be caused by water pollution caused by river facilities, etc., it shall be deemed that there is no possibility that residents may suffer environmental damage directly and seriously, and shall not be individually protected or specifically protected by the living environment.

2) Environmental benefits protected under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 1, 13, 14(1), 16, and 19(1) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, the purpose of the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act is to protect the neighboring environmental public interest by ensuring that the projects subject to environmental impact assessment are not detrimental to the surrounding environment and are not limited to the protection of the surrounding environmental public interest by ensuring that the projects are implemented without damaging the surrounding environment. In addition, each resident in the areas subject to environmental impact assessment intends to protect the individual interests that can live in a pleasant environment without being subject to environmental infringement exceeding the limit of tolerance

Therefore, the above environmental benefits, which residents in the area subject to the environmental impact assessment hold in relation to various dispositions in relation to the project subject to the environmental impact assessment, shall not be limited to the abstract, average, and general interests commonly held by the general public as a result of the public interest protection, but to the direct and specific interests individually protected by the law based on the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu5503, Oct. 20, 1998).

(iii) environmental interests protected by the National Land Planning and Utilization Act;

Article 58(3) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 9758 of Jun. 9, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "National Land Planning Act") and Article 56(1) [Attachment 1] subparag. 1(d)-2(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21835 of Nov. 20, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") provide that "No risk of environmental pollution caused by water pollution in the relevant area and its surrounding areas is likely to occur due to the development activities" as the criteria for the permission for the development activities. The purport of the provision is to protect the individual benefits directly and directly by the residents anticipated to suffer from environmental damage, such as water pollution caused by discharge, etc., without environmental impairment.

Therefore, as residents who are supplied with tap water and drink or use it, they can be recognized as standing to sue by proving that the aforementioned applicable laws and regulations and relevant laws and regulations are directly and specifically protecting individual benefits in their living environment that can drink or use clean tap water without being affected by environmental benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du16127, Apr. 15, 2010).

4) Whether to recognize standing to sue under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and the National Land Planning Act

A) Whether the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and the National Land Planning Act are the legal basis for each of the dispositions in this case

According to the provisions of Article 4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, Article 3 (2) [Attachment Table 1] and 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, the construction work performed for the river area in order to improve the function of the river and the construction work section is required to be performed for a project whose length is not less than 10 kilometers in length at the center of the river. In addition, the provisions of Article 32 (1) 5 of the River Act and Article 18 (1) of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act provide that "in case where the implementation plan for river work is formulated and publicly notified, or the defendant joining the defendant obtains permission to engage in the development work under Article 56 (1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, it shall be deemed that

The project of this case is a project related to the use and development of the Nakdongdong River whose contents are the improvement of the Nakdongdong river system. The project section is the first project extended 122.14 km, the second project is the extension 180.67 km, and each of the dispositions of this case is the provisional disposition of the implementation plan for the river works by the head of the Regional Construction and Management Administration of Busan or the fact that each of the dispositions of this case is the approval of the implementation plan for the defendant's defendant's defendant's intervenor

Thus, the project of this case constitutes the project subject to the environmental impact assessment pursuant to Article 4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, Article 3 (2) and attached Table 1] subparagraph 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, and the laws and regulations related to the Environmental Enforcement Decree and the National Land Planning Act are the grounds for each disposition of

B) The area subject to the project’s environmental impact assessment and the area of the raw water used for the project

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 10-1, 2-2, and 10-1 and 2, the defendants are deemed to have an impact on all the environment including the air environment, water environment, marine environment, land environment, natural ecosystem environment, living environment, social and economic environment at the time of conducting the environmental impact assessment of the project of this case, and they set the assessment area by each environmental field. The assessment area for the first and second projects included in the environmental impact assessment report conducted with respect to the project of this case shall be deemed to have the same facts as the attached Table 3 and Table 4, but it is difficult to determine the exact assessment area only with the assessment area written in the environmental impact assessment report on the project of this case.

If Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 10-1, 2-2, and 10-1, and 2 are integrated into the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendants, at the time of the preparation of the environmental impact assessment report as to the project of this case, have conducted the procedures for gathering opinions from the relevant basic local governments within each project area while holding the public hearing, and considering these circumstances together with the purpose and purpose of the environmental impact assessment-related Acts and subordinate statutes, the areas subject to environmental impact assessment by each section of the project of this case shall be the same as the areas subject to environmental impact assessment by each section of the project of this case, and the areas subject to environmental impact assessment by each section of the project of this case shall be the areas subject to environmental interests protected by law. The areas subject to environmental impact assessment by each section of the project of this case shall be consistent with the table No. 1, Table No. 2, and the area subject to environmental impact assessment by each section of the project area subject to environmental impact assessment by each unit of the project of this case.

Next, according to the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 10-1, 10-2 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 10-2, among the water intake facilities adjacent to each business section, the water intake facilities collecting the drinking water of the general public for the purpose of water use, and their adjoining sections, sections, and drinking areas are acknowledged as follows.

Water intake facilities and drinking areas by section or section of the project.

11 12

The water intake section 18, 18, 1,2. Masan-gun, 1, 1,3, 18, 18, 23, 23, 23, 23, 23, 23, 10, 23, 23, 23, 10, 23, 10, 26, 2,78, 2,78, 30, 30, 23, 33, 30, 30, 30, 100, 100, 100, 100, 23, 2,5, 100, 100, 100, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000,000,00

16

According to the above facts of recognition, there are only the interests of the action No. 1 and No. 3 in the entry "the pertinent disposition" in the entry "the list No. 5," and only the interests of the action No. 1 and No. 8 (the same as mentioned above as there are no interests of the action against No. 1 and No. 8). Accordingly, residents living in the area "the food area" in the table No. 3 through No. 7 in the table No. 5 (i.e., elderly, achievement group, and Si) are environmental interests legally protected.

C) A standing to sue each disposition of the instant case

Therefore, the area subject to the environmental impact assessment and the area subject to drinking water in each of the dispositions in this case, other than the dispositions stated in the list of dispositions in attached Form 2, among the dispositions in this case, is identical to the entry of the list of standing to sue in each of the dispositions in attached Form 3, and the plaintiffs living in the relevant area are the same as the entry of the list of standing to sue in attached Form 3, and the plaintiffs who reside in the relevant area are the same as the entry of the column of the same list, and the plaintiffs are legally protected environmental interests under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act or the National Land Planning Act for each disposition entered in the column of the same list. Therefore, only the action for cancellation of the disposition is recognized (the separate list of standing to sue in attached Form 4 is to be prepared).

D) As to this, the plaintiffs are also entitled to standing to sue for the following reasons, the plaintiffs are also entitled to standing to sue, inasmuch as they are legally protected the right to protect life-sustaining, physical safety, and property from the risk of flood damage, in light of the purport of Article 33 of the River Act, in addition to the areas subject to environmental impact assessment and the areas subject to drinking water, and the environment protected by the Framework Act on Environmental Policy.

(1) Whether there exists legal interest protected by the Constitution and the Framework Act on Environmental Policy

Article 35 (1) of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment, and the State and all citizens shall endeavor to preserve the environment." Article 6 of the Framework Act on Environment Conservation provides that "All citizens shall have the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment, cooperate with the State and local governments in their environmental preservation policies and make efforts to preserve the environment." Therefore, even when interpreting and applying judicial provisions, the environmental rights, which are fundamental rights under the Constitution, should be fully guaranteed. However, it is difficult to see that the provisions of the Constitution alone do not provide that the provisions of the Constitution directly grant specific judicial rights to all citizens, because the contents and scope of the environment subject to protection, and the scope of the right holder who is the subject of rights, are unclear, and it is inevitable to inevitably restrict the other party's freedom of activities and rights.

Therefore, for an environmental right to be recognized as a private right, there is a express provision on the right, or in light of the purport or reasoning of the relevant statutes, the subject, contents, and method of exercising the right, etc., to be specifically established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 94Ma2218, May 23, 1995). Since there is no express provision that recognizes the environmental right as a private right, there is no express provision that recognizes the environmental right, the right to claim for the exclusion of disturbance cannot be acknowledged pursuant to the environmental right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da56153, Jul. 22, 1997; 98Da47528, Jul. 27, 1999); and Article 6 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy cannot be deemed as granting specific rights

Therefore, there is no reason that standing to sue is recognized under the Constitution and the Framework Act on Environmental Policy.

(2) Whether legal interests protected by Article 33 of the River Act exists

According to Article 33 of the River Act, when permission for occupation and use of rivers is granted, it shall take into account whether flood has occurred or the impact on snow on the river, and additional clauses necessary to prevent pollution caused by the contamination of a river and any harm to public health and sanitation may be attached thereto.

However, the River Act was enacted for the purpose of promoting public welfare by promoting the benefits of river use, environmentally-friendly maintenance and conservation, and preventing damage caused by river flow. In light of the fact that there is no provision for protecting the interests of residents in the neighborhood of a river when installing river facilities and executing river work, and that Article 33 of the River Act cannot be seen as granting direct and specific rights to protect the safety of life, body, and property from the risk of flood and flood damage, the Plaintiffs’ living benefits protected by Articles 1 and 33 of the River Act are limited to the abstract, average, anti-private interests of the general public due to the result of protecting the public interest.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that standing to sue is recognized under Article 33 of the River Act.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the lawsuit of this case against the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs is illegal since the disposition nature is denied, and the lawsuit of this case against the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs is not subject to appeal litigation. ② Since the lawsuit of this case concerning the disposition 19 through 12 is filed with the lapse of the period of appeal litigation, it is illegal. ③ Since the lawsuit of this case concerning the disposition 1 through 8 is not a benefit of lawsuit, it is illegal, and ④ The lawsuit of revocation against each disposition stated in the list of plaintiffs standing to sue in attached Form 3 is not a legal interest, and it is unlawful since the lawsuit of

Therefore, the dispositions that are the object of the judgment on the merits are the remaining dispositions excluding the parts of the Disposition Nos. 1 through 12 among each of the dispositions in this case (hereinafter referred to as "each of the dispositions in this case" as referred to only the remaining dispositions subject to the judgment on the merits), and as to each of the dispositions in this case, only the lawsuits filed by the plaintiff who is standing to sue in lieu of the dispositions in this case (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs" as only the plaintiffs who have standing to sue in this case) are determined.

3. The legality of each of the dispositions of this case

Each disposition of this case is a specific administrative plan with a large scale of finance, and there is a sharp conflict of opinion on whether to implement the project, and there is a political decision-making, and thus, how to apply the judicial review and what criteria should be applied. Thus, prior to determining the legality of each disposition of this case, the meaning and relationship of the judicial control over the administrative plan and the procedural provision to be observed at the time of the establishment and implementation of the implementation plan, and further, in the case of the administrative plan where the division itself is a political process, the judicial branch will review the legality of the administrative plan.

A. Legal principles and the meaning of determining legality of administrative plans and planning discretion

1) The importance of the legal principles on the control of planned discretion and procedural control in the administrative plan

Administrative plans are established as an activity criteria to realize a certain order at the time specified in the future by integrating and coordinating administrative means related to one another in order to achieve a specific administrative objective based on professional and technical judgments on administration. Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes only provide abstract administrative goals and procedures, but do not provide any specific provision regarding the content of administrative plans, and thus, the administrative body is relatively broad freedom in formulating and determining a specific administrative plan. Meanwhile, there is a limitation that the freedom of formation held by the administrative body is not unlimited, but not limited to the public interest and private interest of the persons related to the administrative plan, but also between the public interest and private interest and the private interest. Accordingly, in formulating and determining the administrative plan, if the administrative body fails to pay the benefits at all or to include the benefits that should be considered in balancing, or if there is lack of objectivity, the administrative plan decision is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Nu86979, Mar. 26, 2008).

In addition, in formulating and determining an administrative plan, the provisions on the procedure established to prevent unfair infringement on the rights-holder interests of the majority interested parties and to secure democratization and trust in administration are functions of guaranteeing the legitimacy and objectivity of the implementation plan that is relatively broad freedom of formation, legitimacy of balancing interests, and objectivity. As such, control through procedural provisions on the administrative plan that requires reasonable adjustment of advanced expertise, technical judgment, and complicated interests in the modern society has more significance, and control through the procedural provisions on the administrative plan that requires more advanced expertise, technical judgment, and complicated interests is more important, and accordingly, it is impossible to accomplish the legislative intent because the degree of insolvency is the same as the case where the legal procedure is not followed, even though it did not go through the procedure required by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or going through the procedure, and thus, it is unlawful as a defect of the administrative plan.

(ii)the relationship between the procedural regulations in the administrative plan and the control of planned discretion;

However, there is a question as to whether the decision of the administrative body can be replaced by the decision of the judicial branch through the planning discretion control legal principles as to the project implementation plan for a large scale national project in which the political decision is spreading and the interest of the administrative body is sharply conflicting, in addition to the limit of judicial review due to the development of science and technology and industry in modern society and the advancement and specialization of various survey and analysis techniques in modern society. If it can be replaced by the decision of the administrative body through the planning discretion control legal principles, it is desirable to do so, and it is possible to replace to a certain extent if there is any defect in the specific degree. Accordingly, it is practically difficult for the judicial branch to take a private legal control by applying the planning discretion legal principles as to the project implementation plan for a large scale national project in which the political decision is spreading and the political interest is sharply conflicting. Accordingly, if the judicial branch can substitute the decision of the administrative body's discretion, it is impossible to permit the citizen to easily exercise the political authority's own discretion, and if it is unreasonable to establish the political authority's own discretion and to control.

The Supreme Court states the relationship between the legal principles on judicial control over planning discretion and the procedural regulations required by the relevant laws and regulations as follows.

If a disposition such as approval is made without going through the environmental impact assessment as to a project subject to the environmental impact assessment as prescribed by the Environmental Impact Assessment Decree, the disposition should be deemed unlawful, but if it was conducted through such procedure, the content of the environmental impact assessment is somewhat defective. Even if the degree of the defect is so that it is impossible to achieve the legislative purport of the environmental impact assessment system, and it is not different from that of the failure to conduct the environmental impact assessment, the failure is only one element of the determination of whether there is an illegality of deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, and the relevant approval shall not be deemed unlawful as a matter of course due to the defect (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Du9902, Jun. 29, 2001; 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 2006).

Specifically, in light of the purport of the culture that the pertinent administrative plan is subject to preliminary feasibility study and that it requires the preliminary feasibility study procedure, the administrative agency’s pursuit of other public projects is no longer capable of pursuing other public projects by implementing the pertinent plan. If an environmental impact assessment is conducted prior to the implementation of the pertinent plan, it would be an issue of balancing interests between public interests and other public interests. If an environmental impact assessment is conducted prior to the implementation of the pertinent plan, the legislative purport of the environmental impact assessment, which is to predict the impact on the environment and to present the countermeasures and alternatives, is the problem of balancing interests between public interests that the plan is intended to be achieved and the natural environment that may be infringed upon by the implementation of the pertinent plan, and it would be an issue of balancing interests between public interests and private interests that the plan is intended to achieve and private interests that may be infringed specifically due to the implementation of the relevant plan.

Therefore, in the process of formulating and determining an administrative plan, the purport of the procedural provision required by the relevant laws and regulations is to be legislated as a procedural control under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in order to prevent any omission of sentence or any erroneous sentence, or to ensure the legitimacy and objectivity of the sentence in the balancing of private interests and private interests that are infringed by the public interest and other public interests in the course of establishing the administrative plan, and to ensure that the procedural provision required by the relevant laws and regulations has been enacted as a procedural control under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Therefore, the importance of the procedural provision under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes on the formulation and establishment of the administrative plan is further added to the importance of the procedural provision under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes on the deviation and abuse of the planning discretion, and the strictness is also required in the interpretation and application thereof.

3) In the instant case:

The four master plans are formulated and decided as a master plan, the budget has been compiled, the implementation of the project has been carried out, and each of the dispositions of this case has been completed, and the construction has been completed at present.

22. The legitimacy of the 4th class lecture project, including the instant company, as a large-scale national government-invested business with more than KRW 200 billion, should not only be justified in itself, but also be justified in a procedural manner. Specifically, in determining the legality of each of the instant dispositions, it should be examined as to whether the relevant laws and regulations required for each of the instant dispositions up to the dispositions of the instant case were violated, and whether the administrative body deviates from and abused discretion in its content.

B. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

The plaintiffs claim that all or part of the dispositions of this case were in violation of the River Act, the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, the Cultural Re-Protection Act, the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, and the National Finance Act, and that they were in violation of the said Act since they exceeded and abused discretionary power.

1) Whether the River Act is in violation

A) The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Pursuant to Articles 24(7) and 27(2) of the River Act, an implementation plan for river works should be established and modified in order within the scope of a superior plan, such as a water resources plant master plan, a basin comprehensive water control plan, and a basic river plan. However, since each of the instant river works implementation plans was not established based on the above-mentioned upper-level plan, it did not proceed in accordance with the procedures for the formulation of a river plan under the River Act. In particular, the implementation plan for each of the instant river works, the main contents of which are dredging and installation of 4.4 billion Won, should be examined in the basin basin basin basin basin basin basin basin basin basin basin basin plan, and which should be prior to a change in the basin basin basin basin comprehensive water control plan, conflicts with the contents of the plan (e.g., it is legally binding in the existing basin comprehensive water control plan, but it was unlawful that the implementation plan for river works of this case was not subject to a change in the river basin basin plan, and thus, it was unlawful in accordance with each of the river basin plan.

(2) In formulating the comprehensive water control plan for the Nakdong River basin by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, he did not undergo consultation by the local river management committee and deliberation by the Central River Management Committee as stipulated in Article 24(4) of the River Act. In formulating the basic river plan for the Nakdong River basin, he did not undergo a proper deliberation by the river management deliberation committee as stipulated in Article 25(5) of the River Act or did so formally. Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful, since the above plans are procedural defects

B) Relevant statutes

Attached Form 6 (2) shall be as specified in attached Table 6-related Acts and subordinate statutes.

C) Determination

(1) We examine the plaintiffs' first argument.

(A) Article 24 (7) of the River Act provides that "the comprehensive water control plan for river basin shall be established within the scope of the long-term comprehensive water resources plan, which shall be the basis of the basic river plan," and Article 27 (2) provides that "the river basin implementation plan shall be established within the scope of the basic river plan."

(B) However, according to Article 23 of the River Act, a long-term comprehensive water resource plan shall be formulated by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on a 20-year basis to secure the stable use, development, and preservation of water resources and to review the validity thereof every five years. Under Article 24 of the River Act, the comprehensive water control plan for river basin shall be formulated on a 10-year basis with the content of matters necessary for the development and utilization of water resources of river basin, the proper use of river basin environment, the improvement of flood prevention, and the minimization of flood damage. Under Article 25 of the River Act, the basic river plan shall be formulated on a 10-year basis with the content of basic matters necessary for the use and nature-friendly management of river in the river under his/her control and it shall not be deemed reasonable every five years, and it shall not be deemed that the basic river plan is a long-term comprehensive water resource management plan or a long-term comprehensive water resource management plan, including Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act.

(C) In addition, since each plan is a continuing and long-term plan that is to be repeatedly formulated on a 20-year or ten-year basis, rather than a one-time and temporary plan, it shall be deemed that the time difference does not necessarily occur between the plans, and (3) if necessary to review the feasibility of the plan every five years, it shall be deemed that the contents, status, and additional necessary policies may be reflected in the higher plan when reviewing the feasibility of the plan. Considering the aforementioned differences in the period and procedure of the establishment of each plan as above and the possibility of changes after reviewing the feasibility of the plan, each plan should be established within the upper range of the plan, and Articles 24(7) and 27(2) of the River Act, which provide that the plan should be established within the upper range of the plan cannot be interpreted as a provision on the restriction of the ex post facto relationship between each plan, and there is no other provision on the ex post facto relationship between each plan, and thus, it shall not be deemed that there is a conflict between the Plaintiffs’ long-term and river basin comprehensive plan and the basic river plan.

(D) Even if the river project plan was not established by the subsequent establishment of the above top-tier plan as alleged by the plaintiffs, or the contents of the river project plan are different from those of the upper-tier plan, such circumstance alone does not constitute unlawful execution of the river project plan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu13927, Nov. 27, 1998; 2000Du8226, Oct. 11, 2002; 2005Du1893, Apr. 12, 2007).

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' claims on the premise that the long-term comprehensive water resource plan (2006~200), the water control plan for the Nakdong River basin (2009), and the basic river plan for the Nakdong River (2009) are binding plans are without merit.

(2) We examine the second argument of the plaintiffs.

(A) Article 24 (4) of the River Act provides that when formulating or amending a basin flood control plan, consultation with the head of the relevant administrative agency shall be required for consultation with the local river management agency and deliberation by the Do Council of the central river basin. In full view of the purport of the arguments in the items of No. 14, No. 15, No. 15, No. 4-1, No. 2, and No. 5-1, and No. 5-2, the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted an audit of "the implementation status of river management and river improvement projects" for Busan regional land management agency by November 23, 2006, the Minister of Audit and Inspection conducted an audit of the "the implementation status of river management and river improvement projects" for Busan regional land management agency by December 22, 2006, the comprehensive flood control plan for the Nakdong River basin established in 205 and notified the head of the relevant regional river management agency of the amendment and supplementation thereof on August 20, 2007.

(B) According to the above facts, the Defendants had all relevant procedures, such as consultation with the heads of relevant administrative agencies required under the River Act to supplement the comprehensive water control plan for the Nakdong River basin, consultation with the local river management committee, deliberation by the Central River Management Committee, etc., and it is difficult to conclude that the aforementioned procedures were merely an inevitable act to justify the private business of this case.

(C) In addition, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier in the determination of the plaintiffs' first assertion, even if there are defects as alleged by the plaintiffs in the establishment of a comprehensive water control plan for the Nakdong River basin, a higher-level plan, it is reasonable that each of the dispositions of this case, which is a subordinate plan, is unlawful. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(3) Sub-determination

The plaintiffs' assertion that each of the dispositions of this case is illegal as it violates the River Act is without merit.

2) Whether construction technology management violates the Construction Technology Management Act

A) The plaintiffs' assertion

The projects subject to each of the dispositions of this case constitute a prescribed construction work in the Construction Technology Management Act, and the feasibility study required by the Construction Technology Management Act is different from the procedures for examining the necessity, feasibility, and appropriateness of the basic river plan in the process of establishing the basic river plan under the subordinate Act. Thus, even if the objects, contents, and characteristics of the investigation were different, the feasibility study under the Construction Technology Management Act should be conducted separately. However, the defendants did not implement the feasibility study under Article 23-3 of the Construction Technology Management Act and Article 38-6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Management Act in the process of implementing each of the dispositions of this case. Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case is the defects

(2) Relevant statutes

Attached Form 6(3) shall be as specified in attached Table 6(3).

(3) Determination

(A) According to Article 21-3 of the former Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Act No. 9848 of Dec. 29, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Construction Technology Management Act") and Articles 38-4 through 38-19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21852 of Nov. 26, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), the contracting authority shall ensure that the process of executing construction works, such as planning, design, execution, supervision, maintenance, and management, shall be achieved in an organic manner in order to implement construction works in an economic and efficient manner. To this end, the contracting authority shall undergo the process of implementing the basic plan, feasibility study, construction work basic plan, basic design, working design, etc.

However, Article 38-4 of the Enforcement Decree provides that "where specifically provided for in other Acts and subordinate statutes," the construction technology management law is a basic law for the implementation of construction works, and it is enacted to ensure that construction works be ordered after sufficiently reviewing the necessity, validity, and appropriateness of the scale of construction works in advance, unless otherwise provided for in other Acts and subordinate statutes. Therefore, the legislative intent of other Acts and subordinate statutes is to avoid repeated repetition of the procedures by allowing only the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, which are a special law, to apply only the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, if there is a procedure for sufficiently examining the necessity, feasibility, and appropriateness of the construction works.

However, the River Act stipulates that the long-term comprehensive water resources plan (Article 22), the comprehensive water control plan (Article 24), and the basic river plan (Article 25) shall be formulated through the river basin survey (Article 16), the floodgate survey (Article 17), the flood damage survey (Article 21), etc., in connection with the implementation of river works. With respect to each plan, the River Act shall be formulated by reviewing the feasibility of the plan periodically and if necessary, the implementation of the river works shall be implemented by preparing detailed plans according to the plan.

Thus, the above provisions of the River Act are procedures for examining the necessity, feasibility, appropriateness, etc. of river works, and they correspond to the "cases specially stipulated in other Acts and subordinate statutes" under Article 38-4 of the Enforcement Decree.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 6-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 6-2, it is acknowledged that the survey was conducted in advance on the implementation of the project of this case, such as the floodgate of the river, the low-do characteristics, the current status of damage from river facilities and the red water and droughts, the current status of the use of the river, etc., and the survey of the river, the analysis of water supply and demand plans, the calculation of flood damage, the calculation of the annual average damage, and the analysis of investment efficiency based on the calculation of expected annual average damage, etc., and the comprehensive effect analysis on the implementation of the basic river plan under the River Act, such as river environment and maintenance. Accordingly, through the process of establishing the basic river plan under the River Act, the examination and examination of the technical and economic validity of the construction of this case was practically implemented.

(B) As to this, the Plaintiffs asserts that the provisions related to the implementation of construction works under the Construction Technology Management Act shall apply to the ambiguous construction work except electrical construction, information and communications construction work, fire-fighting system installation work, and repair work of cultural properties under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Construction Technology Management Act and Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. Therefore, the river works under the River

In accordance with Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Construction Technology Management Act and Article 2 subparag. 4 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 9875 of Dec. 29, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the “Framework Act on the Construction Industry”), the term “construction work” under the Construction Industry Management Act means electrical construction work under the Electrical Construction Business Act, information and communications construction work under the Construction Business Act, fire-fighting system construction work under the Act, fire-fighting system installation work under the Fire-Fighting System Installation Business Act, excluding repair work under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, civil engineering work, construction work, industrial installation work, etc., installation and cancellation work of machinery and equipment and other structures.

However, each of the above provisions is a definition provision of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and it does not conflict with those excluded from the application of Article 21-3 of the Construction Technology Management Act and the Enforcement Decree of the related provisions. Rather, Article 38-4 of the Enforcement Decree provides that the application of the above provisions shall be excluded in cases where there are special provisions in other Acts and subordinate statutes concerning river work in the premise that river work is subject to the Construction Technology Management Act

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(C) If so, each of the dispositions in this case is a river work under the River Act, and is subject to the provisions of the River Act concerning the process of performing a river work, and accordingly, the application of all the provisions concerning the process of performing a construction work under the Construction Technology Management Act is excluded. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that each of the dispositions in this case was defective on a different premise is without merit.

3) Whether the Korea Water Resources Corporation has violated

A) The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) According to Articles 8 and 28 of the River Act and Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act, river works shall be performed by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, who is the river management authority, and the defendant's intervenor may act on behalf of him only in certain cases, such as disaster restoration works. Although the project in this case does not fall under river works that the defendant's intervenor may act on behalf of him pursuant to Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act, participation in part of the project in this case is against the legitimacy of the River Act and the legal system that strictly provides for the authority of the river management authority and the scope of the authority of the river work agent. Accordingly, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs designated the defendant's intervenor as the project implementer with respect to the project in this case as the defendant's project in this case is unlawful as it is also against the River Act.

(2) Unlike general private enterprises, the scope of the Defendant’s business activities is limited to the business objectives stipulated in the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act. According to the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, the scope of the Defendant’s business activities is limited to the Defendant’s business activities. Therefore, the Defendant’s instant project, which falls under flood control projects, such as disaster prevention projects, is unable to be performed by the Defendant’s Intervenor, and thus, it is against Article 9 of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act to designate the Defendant’

(3) Not only violated Article 30 of the River Act, but also violated Article 10(3) of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act by failing to undergo consultation with the head of the relevant local government, on the grounds that the compliance with the basic river plan at the time of each of the instant dispositions.

(4) Therefore, among each of the dispositions in this case, each of the dispositions in which the Intervenor joining the Defendant was designated as the project implementer, the “disposition 1 to 2” is unlawful.

B) Relevant statutes

Attached Form 6-Related Acts and subordinate statutes (4) shall be as specified in attached Table 6.

C) Determination

(1) According to the provisions of Articles 1, 2, and 9(1) of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, the Defendant’s Intervenor is a public corporation established with the aim of contributing to the improvement of citizens’ lives and the promotion of public welfare by facilitating the supply of water for living and improving water quality through the comprehensive development and management of water resources, and thereby contributing to the improvement of water quality. In particular, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s major project is the construction and operation of water resources development facilities, projects related to the development and use of water resources, construction, operation, and management of facilities for sewage terminal treatment, and development of industrial complexes and special areas. In particular, the “construction, operation, and management of facilities for the comprehensive development and use of water resources” is also stipulated as the project of the Defendant’s Intervenor.

According to the provisions of Article 10(1), (3), (4), and Article 26 of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, and Articles 8 and 27(5) of the River Act, the Intervenor joining the Defendant may establish an implementation plan for the project in order to carry out the project related to the construction of facilities for the comprehensive development and use of water resources and obtain approval from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. If the Defendant’s implementation plan is approved and announced by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs after consultation with the head of the relevant central administrative agency, etc., the Intervenor’s Intervenor may, in principle, carry out river management and river work within the scope of approval by the river management agency, exercise the authority of the said implementation plan to the extent that the river management and river maintenance and repair are permitted.

According to the provisions of Article 18 (1) 18 of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act and Article 30 (1), (5), and (6) of the River Act, if the catch of the Intervenor joining the Defendant is approved and publicly notified pursuant to the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, the Intervenor joining the Defendant is deemed to have prepared an implementation plan for river works with permission from the river management agency with regard to river works or the maintenance and repair of rivers under the River Act, and shall have been approved and publicly notified by the river management agency.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 2-1 through 6, evidence Nos. 23-2, 3, 4, 6, and evidence Nos. 24-1, 2, 1, 2, 1, and 2 of the evidence Nos. 24-2, 1, 24-2, 2, 20, 22, 25, 30, and 31 of the instant project among the instant projects pursuant to Article 10 of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, the Defendant’s Intervenor established an implementation plan for the instant project with the approval of the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (hereinafter “public project”), and conducted the instant project with the implementation plan. The implementation of the project is to solve water problems by preventing floods and droughts, restore and create a healthy river ecosystem by improving the water quality, promoting the local economy, culture, tourism, and to secure the development plan as well as the development plan as a type of water resources.

Further to the above facts, ① River works are implemented by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, who is the river management agency, in principle, with the permission of the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. In such context, if a person who is not the river management agency has obtained approval of an implementation plan under the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, the Intervenor’s Intervenor has the status of exercising the same authority as the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs with respect to the implementation of public works, ② The purpose of the Defendant’s project (the development of comprehensive water resources for the prevention of floods and droughts, securing water quality and environment, and regional development) is to improve the water quality of the Defendant’s river works as well as the purpose of the Defendant’s establishment (the improvement of water quality, improvement of the life, and improvement of the water quality of the Defendant’s water supply facilities through the comprehensive development and management of water resources, and the scope of the implementation of the river works by the Defendant’s Intervenor’s construction and operation of the river works as well as the scope of the river management agency’s construction and operation of the river conservation facilities and operation of the Act.

Furthermore, the purpose of each of the dispositions in this case is ① the shortage of water in the future, the strengthening of countermeasures against droughts, the safe implementation of floods, ② the creation of sound aquatic ecosystems by improving water quality and restoring rivers, ③ the improvement of the level of leisure culture of the people and the quality of life, such as river maintenance, riverine accessibility, water-related leisure activities, etc., ② the green New Durst project is obviously one of the purpose of the establishment, dredging, construction of beams in the project in this case, and construction of water supply, dredging, construction of small power stations and bicycle track for the purpose of expanding leisure spaces by using water resources, and the completion of construction for expanding leisure spaces by using water supply. In light of the above, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s part of the project in this case is inconsistent with the scope of the project stipulated in the National Water Resources Corporation Act, in which the Defendant’s implementation of part of the project in this case is conducted.

C) The Defendant’s implementation of the instant project is based on Article 30 of the River Act, not Article 26 of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act. As such, the Plaintiffs’ assertion premised on the application of Article 30 of the River Act is without merit without merit, and according to Article 61-1 and 2 of the Evidence No. 61-2 of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, including the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the head of the Regional Construction and Management Office of Busan Regional Construction and Management, the head of the Busan Regional Environmental Management Office, the Mayor of the Busan Metropolitan City, and the Mayor of the Gyeongnam-do Governor, shall have consulted in advance

D) If so, the Intervenor joining the Defendant is deemed to have a legitimate project executor’s status with respect to construction work pursuant to the provisions of Articles 10 and 26 of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act and Article 30 of the River Act. Thus, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

4) Whether the Cultural Heritage Protection Act has been violated

A) The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs were to conduct the surface inspection of cultural properties under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in relation to the four major projects. However, the period of such inspection (two months) or the number of investigators into the four major projects was insufficient, and it was limited to conducting a wise survey when compared to the scale of the four major projects. ② Since all 23 institutions participating in the surface inspection of cultural properties are not designated as an underwater surface inspection agency, it is nothing more than the failure to conduct an underwater surface inspection of the four major projects. Accordingly, each disposition of this case is unlawful since it is against the Cultural Heritage Protection Act.

B) Relevant statutes

Attached Form 6(5) shall be as specified in attached Table 6(5).

C) Determination

(1) Under the provisions of Article 91(1) of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 9401 of Jan. 31, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “Stop Fire Protection Act”) and Article 2(1) of the former Regulations on the Methods, Procedures, etc. for Ground Surface Inspection of Cultural Heritage (amended by Act No. 2009-73 of Aug. 28, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “Ground Surface Inspection Regulations”), the implementer of a construction project shall conduct a ground surface inspection (hereinafter referred to as the “ground Surface Inspection”) to verify whether relics are buried and distributed in the construction area when establishing the construction project plan. In this case, the ground surface inspection refers to a survey on whether relics or relics are distributed in the earth or water surface before performing the construction project within a specific area, including the survey on history, folklore, geological and natural environment.

According to Article 91(2) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, Article 80 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism No. 120 of April 21, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule"), and Article 3 of the Rules on Ground Survey, ground surface surveys shall be divided into ground surface surveys and ground surface surveys, and land surface surveys shall be conducted by cultural heritage-related specialized institutions selected and publicly announced by the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration by meeting certain standards at the request of the implementer of the relevant construction works.

According to Article 81-2 and attached Table 15-2 of the Enforcement Rule, the ground surface survey for river works shall be conducted when an implementation plan for river works or an implementation plan for river works is formulated, and the survey institution shall determine the appropriate period of survey in consideration of the area of the survey, local conditions, etc., but the survey institution shall complete the survey and report within 20 days and submit the result to the requester.

In particular, Article 7 (3) of the Land Surface Inspection Regulations provides that in the case of underwater surface surveys, the procedures and methods of the survey may be applied selectively or flexibly according to the cases and characteristics of the project area, and the survey data may be substituted by existing survey data or the survey data provided by the project operator.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence 14-2, Eul evidence 15-2, Eul evidence 15-2, 23 cultural heritage specialized investigation agencies (220 specialized investigation officers) have conducted a survey on the land surface for 81 days from February 13, 2009 to May 4, 209 for 209 with respect to the entire area (294m20m2) adjacent areas. The defendants separately conducted a survey on the ground surface for 30 days from July 23, 2009 to August 21, 209, including a field survey on the 10m20m2 adjacent areas, which were recognized as necessary by the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration for 10m20m2 adjacent areas, and 1m20m2, which were recognized as necessary for 20m2 from among the research on the ground surface of this case.

In addition to the provisions related to the surface survey and the overall purport of the pleading prior to the above facts, ① the ground surface survey for the four projects was conducted for more than four times the ordinary statutory ground surface survey period (within 20 days). The scale of the participating cultural heritage-related specialized institutions and specialized researchers is higher than that of other projects. ② The ground surface survey is acknowledged as being conducted in water, including the field survey, from among four specialized institutions designated and publicly notified by the head of the Cultural Heritage Administration, in addition to the land surface survey, the ground surface survey for the project of this case was conducted for more than four times.

(3) If so, the Defendants were to conduct surface surveys and underwater surface surveys in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, such as the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, etc. for the implementation of the instant project. Thus, the Defendants were to conduct surface surveys and underwater surface surveys for the purpose of implementing the instant project. Therefore, all of the Plaintiffs’ assertion

5) Whether the Environmental Impact Assessment Act is violated

A) The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs’ respective environmental impact assessment (hereinafter “environmental impact assessment”) conducted by the Defendants with respect to the instant project is to the extent that it is impossible to achieve the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system, such as the fact that each environmental impact assessment (hereinafter “environmental impact assessment”) was conducted by the Defendants, as set forth below, did not honor a direct and core impact assessment due to the implementation of the project, was conducted by a person who has no authority for the environmental impact assessment, and that it was conducted by a person who has no authority for the environmental impact assessment, and that the Defendants violated the right to state residents’ opinions, or that it was conducted through consultation with the Minister of Environment before each of the instant dispositions, and that it was conducted after consultation with the Minister of Environment. Accordingly, each of the dispositions

(1) The most important environmental impact of the instant project is related to water quality and the ecosystem. The water quality prediction of the instant environmental impact assessment report is not registered as an agent for environmental impact assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, and thus, it is citing the water quality prediction results of the National Institute of Environmental Research under the Ministry of Environment, which cannot be the agent for the preparation of environmental impact assessment. This is nothing more than the environmental impact assessment conducted by the Ministry of Environment itself.

(2) The 2000 Formula 2 of ground water, which is the core of the environmental impact assessment, was conducted after consultation on the environmental impact assessment in a specific construction section (18 sections, 22 sections), where flood damage is likely to occur.

(3) As a result of the environmental impact assessment, it did not contain a minimum basic information (such as water quality prediction data) and thus infringed the residents’ right to state their opinions.

(4) The survey data on the environmental status presented in the environmental impact assessment report is mostly a person before 2005, and, in principle, a field investigation is insufficient by conducting only a survey on the first section even though it is required to conduct a field investigation over the fourth Section.

(5) The prediction of the water quality of the National Environment Institute of Korea is the same as the failure to forecast water quality because it does not include the increase in the number of sojourn hours due to the most essential construction of the project in the instant case, the growth of algae and the impact of water quality due to this, and thus, it neglected the effect of the wrong-prevention system, which is a measure to reduce water pollution due to dredging, and did not verify the effects of the measures to reduce water pollution due to dredging, and did not present effective mitigation measures against the deterioration of water quality and the destruction of large-scale ecosystems.

(6) No safety verification was conducted on a large scale without undergoing a repair model experiment related to the construction.

(7) The impact of the increase in groundwater level was revealed, but did not have been predicted at all about the flood impact on the low-income farmland, and the scale of the surrounding low-income flood damage caused by the increase in groundwater level was also reduced.

(9) Ha security had its original management level at 7.5m EL., but changed to 5.0m after the Environmental Impact Assessment in this case, I have shown that the environmental impact assessment was erroneous.

(10) On December 31, 2009, in relation to the bareboat Construction, the franchisive modeling content of the change in groundwater level includes flood forecast and mitigation measures against 7.5m, 5.0m and 3.0m, the management water level EL. 3.0m, if the main water management of the large canal system is not secured, even if the construction is not affected by the maintenance of the large canal water level EL. 3.0m, and there is no flood damage against the low-income farmland, but the choice of the EL. 5.0m without the alternative choice to minimize flood damage is inevitable.

(11) The effect of the sludge prevention, which is a measure to reduce water pollution due to dredging, was exaggerated, and even though the area where the erosion is well in operation, it did not verify how much the area where the erosion function is properly operated within the section 302 km of the Nakdong River extension. In the course of dredging the deposited soil of 4.40 million cubic meters, the impact of floating sand on the water quality environment, damage of the water purification function of the sand saw, damage of the water quality purification function of the sand saw, and the impact on the water quality environment by spreading and spreading harmful ingredients to the human body.

B) Relevant statutes

Attached Form 6-related Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as listed in paragraph (7).

C) Relevant legal principles

If a disposition, such as approval, is made with respect to a project subject to an environmental impact assessment as prescribed by the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, even though it was not subject to the environmental impact assessment, such disposition is unlawful. However, if the contents of the environmental impact assessment were to be somewhat defective, even though the degree of the defect is not sufficient to achieve the legislative purport of the environmental impact assessment system, so long as the degree of the defect is not different from that of the failure to conduct the environmental impact assessment, the defect is a single element to determine whether there was an act of deviation or abuse of discretionary authority in the pertinent approval, etc., and the pertinent approval, etc. is not illegal as a matter of course due to the defect.

D) the facts of recognition

(1) Details of the instant environmental impact assessment

(A) On July 17, 2009, the head of the basin basin environmental office and the Daegu regional environmental office held a deliberation committee on each environmental impact assessment plan to inquire about the assessment items, scope, etc. of the project of this case, and notified the head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Office of the results of each environmental impact assessment plan.

(B) On July 31, 2009, the head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration submitted an environmental impact assessment proposal on the project in this case to the head of the Nakdong River basin basin, the head of the Daegu Regional Environmental Office, the head of the relevant local government, etc.

(C) On August 5, 2009, the head of the Regional Construction and Management of Busan Regional Construction and Management and the head of the relevant local government, etc. publicly announced the plan for the public inspection of residents, the holding of resident briefing sessions ( August 14, 2009) and the holding of public hearings ( September 1, 2009) within the draft of the above assessment statement. Accordingly, the residents’ public inspection was conducted by each basic organization from August 5, 2009 to August 28, 2009, and the resident briefing sessions were held within one region and two regions respectively. The public hearing was held by the head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration on August 25, 2009 by the head of the regional Construction and Management of Busan Regional Construction and Management of the Republic of Korea on September 1, 2009 to publicly announce the plan for the first public inspection (amended).

(D) On September 30, 2009, the head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration requested the head of the Nakdong River basin basin environmental office or the head of the Daegu Regional Environmental Office to consult on the assessment report in the course of submitting each written assessment report by reflecting the details of the gathering of opinions as above and supplementing the deficiencies in the draft written assessment report. The head of the Daegu Regional Environmental Management and Management Office requested each supplementation of the written assessment report on October 21, 2009 and the head of the Nakdong River basin environmental office on October 23, 2009 (1 region). The head of the Daegu Regional Environmental Management and Management Office, upon the request of the head of the Daegu Regional Environmental Management and Management Office on October 26, 2009 (2 region) and the head of the Busan Regional Environmental Management and Management Office submitted each written assessment report reflecting the requests for supplementation on October 29 and October 29 (1 region).

(2) Summary of the instant environmental impact assessment report

(A) The environmental assessment of the instant environmental impact assessment is subdivided into the atmospheric environment (weather, atmosphere), water environment (water quality, water quality, irrigation, and floodgate), land environment (land use, soil, topography, and geological features), natural ecosystem rehabilitation (such as Dong and plant, natural environment assets), living environment (environment-friendly environmental resources circulation, noise, vibration, amusement, landscape), social and economic environment (population, residence, industry), and the impact and mitigation measures, alternatives, and conclusions that may arise from the implementation of the said project are presented according to each item.

(B) The head of the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the draft of the instant environmental assessment report specifically describes the opinions presented by residents at the time of the relevant written assessment report, including, but not limited to, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the river basin environmental office and the Daegu Regional Environmental Office for the draft of the assessment report, the local government (Seoul Metropolitan City, the Gyeongnam-do, the Gyeongnam-do, the Gyeongnam-do, the Busan Metropolitan City, the Do, and the Chang-do), wetlands and new friendships, the Busan Citizens' Movement Center for the Gyeongdong-gu, the Busan Metropolitan City Residents' Movement Center for the Gyeongdong-gu, and the opinions presented by residents at the time of the relevant resident presentation and

(C) The written environmental impact assessment of this case is presented as follows for each sector:

○ Air Quality (Air Quality)

- At the time of entry into the road: Installation of facilities with three wheels and three-wheeled facilities, restriction on speed and loading, periodic implementation and movement-type meals;

Installation of a dust-proof network, efficient input of construction equipment, suppression of the use of aging equipment, malodor and harmful measures, etc.

- At the time of operation: Installation of preventive coverss at the time of operation of storage facilities, and entry into storage facilities for storage facilities, installation of facilities for three-wheeled motor vehicles and implementation of slaughters;

○ Water Environment (water quality)

- At the time of construction: Installation of a multi-level flooded area and a container preventer, real-time water monitoring, application of eco-friendly dredging methods, smoking-resistant inhales;

The use of dredging ships, the establishment of dredging ships (at least 5 m2 m2), and the installation of multi-functional newspapers, which are used by public law;

The establishment and operation of a water disposal center and the integrated water pollution prevention center, etc.

- At the time of operation: Setting of target water quality, installation of distribution facilities in multi-functional maps, installation of underwater explosives facilities, introduction of tidal forecast systems, and reduction of non-point pollution sources;

Installation of Facilities, Rearrangement of Farmland in Rivers, Conservation of Wetlands, Creation of Ecological Wetlands and Aquatic Organisms, COD, T-P Items

Installation of river water quality environmental standards, strengthening of environmental infrastructure facilities standards, measures for treating sewage from users, etc.

○ Water Environment (repair/Hydrological)

- At the time of construction: Installation of a two-year water intake facility and a temporary dam for the water intake facility and the water intake facility of the Liberg and Seodugsan.

Establishment of a boom, installation of a lower-class protection hole, installation of a water boom and floor protection hole, installation of a security defense hole;

- At the time of operation: the installation of an appropriate river reservoir, the formulation of a plan to extend the drainage of the river mouth bank, and changes in the level of groundwater on the arable farmland;

In order to minimize impacts on farmland, the formulation of a project plan for remodeling farmland and the impact on the level of management shall be generated.

Measures for mitigation, such as the increase of pumps and drainage pumps, and facilities excluding inland water;

○ Marine Environment (marine water quality)

- Implementation of an additional installation of a estuarine bank, installation of a deposit prevention room at the downstream of dredging works, etc. after installation of a duplicator;

○ Marine Environment (Maritime Plant)

- At the time of construction: Minimizing the spread of floating material, monitoring similar thereto, adjusting the timing of construction by installing a high-quality anti-fashion prevention room;

- When operating: Installation of fish ladders

○ Land environment (land use)

- The appropriate compensation programme

○ Land Environment (soil)

- At the time of construction: Measures to reduce oil outflow, measures to prevent soil contamination due to removal of obstacles, and dredging soil for a long time;

Dredging, etc. by using a covering clothes and ultrasprinking seeds, or a sealed inhaled dredging vessel;

○ Land Environment (Stop and geological features)

- At the time of construction: A plan for minimizing changes in topography, measures for stabilizing bank protection, measures for disposing of the occurrence of soil, and a plan for installing a bridge protection hole;

Measures to minimize the form of a bicycle lane, and a plan to maintain the surface of the bicycle lane;

○ Natural ecosystem (hereinafter referred to as Dong and plant)

- At the time of construction: thorough implementation of noise reduction measures (minimum damage to wild animals by noise and vibration), prohibition of construction at the time of rain, and slaughter;

thorough implementation of measures to reduce water supply, etc. (prevention of environmental deterioration in form, etc. of soil outflow, dust scattering, etc.)

- At the time of operation: Park and green zone planning, ecological storage reservoir creation, substitute habitats, creation of rest areas, legal protection species characteristics;

Taking into account the measures for mitigation, riverbed, sand saw, wetlands creation, wetland conservation plan, the development of fish ladders for biological mobility routes, etc.

○ Natural ecosystem (natural environment assets)

-Preservation of the original form of wild fauna and flora protection zone (e.g., spath wetlands protection zone, spathical wetlands), conservation of wetlands in the Nakdong River-gu, Nakdong River-gu;

An ecological park master plan, a sand saw inevitably damaged shall be set up in the surrounding area, a stop, and a stop, a stop;

Creation of a substitute habitat for wild species, such as the creation of a sand saw, continuous monitoring, and the creation of an alternative habitat for natives and marshes;

Hands (minimuming of soil and sand outflow, creation of substitute habitats), life (to the maximum extent possible preservation of waterside vegetations, establishment of a buffer zone), yellow harassment, red

Gabing, fedinging, using low vibrations and low noise methods, dredging by dust inhaled, minimizing the passage of construction equipment, and underwater growth zone;

Selective conservation), Mat butts and souths, brings (excluding vehicle mobile passage, blocking entry of sources of pollution, creation of alternative brings), white

수마자(샛강조성, 증식 · 복원계획) 등

○ Living environment (environment-friendly recycling of resources)

- At the time of construction: Waste oil disposal plans by input equipment, measures to dispose of household wastes and excreta, construction waste disposal plans, waste asbestos disposal plans;

Plans, waste vinyl disposal plans, forest wood waste disposal plans;

- When operating: Schemes for the disposal of domestic wastes by users (the maximum recycling), and the measures for the reduction of floating waste in flood time (the cleaning before the end);

○ Living environment (noise and vibration)

- Execution of construction, installation of temporary soundproofing teams, use of low noise type equipment, construction sites in accordance with the Guidelines for Noise and Vibration Management at Construction Sites;

Non-decentralization, adjustment of working hours, and installation of automatic noise measuring devices;

○ Living environment field (entertainment and landscape)

- Parental balances, such as conservation and restoration of existing landscapes, multi-functional landscape plans, and Dogdogs, that do not affect existing amusement facilities;

The creation of a biological habitat, the creation of a book, a bicycle lane, the promotion of landscape design by creating a green belt in a bank, etc.

○ Social and Economic Environment (population, dwelling, industry)

-to conduct adequate compensation, etc. for temporary soundproofing panels, dustproof nets, drain ditches, establishment of flooded land, incorporation into arable land, damage to fishing rights, etc.;

(d) In addition, the environmental impact assessment of this case was selected as an alternative, by comparing the method of increasing the number of banks used at the time of the establishment of the existing basic river plan with the method of expanding the surface of the river and the water reservoir to the nature-friendly environment by means of a flood disaster, and comparing the method of blocking the location of the installation of the river security and Gohap River (Hydrologicalgate) with the location of the installation of the river, the flow of the river flow is stable, smooth flood flow, and the selection of the central allocation with the excellent power of the ship history without the generation of the water tank, and the installation of the river basin more economically favorablely favorable than the construction of new dams and new dams, and the installation of the river basin to secure the safety of the water surface, the installation of the river environment-friendly village to ensure the safety of the water surface, the installation of the river environment-friendly village to ensure the safety of the water surface, the installation of the river environment-friendly village and the installation of the river environment-friendly landscape to ensure the safety of the water surface by comparing it with the front information, the front and complex.

(E) The environmental impact assessment of this case is expected to be affected by the instant project, such as the occurrence of deposit water and incomplete amnestys, damage to the ecosystem, deterioration of water quality in the course of operation, and change of management level. If the aforementioned measures are faithfully implemented, the function of a river's unique landscape and ecological river can be avoided by minimizing minor impacts and inevitable adverse impacts due to the implementation of the project, and the creation of a green belt will serve as the foundation for the construction of a healthy ecosystem through the establishment of an ecological network and the establishment of a bicycle lane plan, etc., and will contribute to the improvement of the national leisure culture level and the quality of life.

(F) In the process of supplementation of the environmental impact assessment of this case upon request by the head of the East River basin basin basin office and the head of the Daegu regional environmental office, the head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Office included the necessary supplementary data in the supplementary data by fully reflecting the request for supplementation of water quality, water quality, water irrigation, marine environment, land use, soil, topography, geological features, malodor, Dong, plant and natural environment assets, and landscape items.

(3) On-site investigations

(A) The environmental impact assessment report of this case is to utilize the existing data (two times each, including the Ministry of Environment, the National Institute of Environmental Research, the Institute of Science, the Institute of Academic Research, the Institute of Academic Research, the Institute of Science and Technology, and the Institute of Environmental Impact Assessment (two times each, respectively), and the results of an on-site investigation as determined by the Deliberative Committee on Environmental Impact Assessment Plans, such as air quality (two times each, groundwater quality (two times each), marine animals and plants (two times), ocean water quality (two times), soil (one time each, two times each, respectively), topography and geological features (two times each, respectively), noise and dust (two times each, respectively), etc.

(B) In the instant environmental impact assessment report, not only was the result of the said on-site investigation but also the data on the survey conducted between December 2, 2003 and May 2009 with respect to the area subject to the project of this case at the time of the preliminary examination for the establishment of the river maintenance master plan for the Nakdongdong River System (the upstream and downstream of the river basin). The results of the survey conducted on-site investigation conducted on-site investigation in 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008, from May to October 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008, 305 National Environmental Research Institute presented the results of the survey on on-site investigation.

(4) Concerning water quality forecasts

(A) The instant environmental impact assessment was written by dividing the results of the construction at the time of the establishment of the fourth Gangseo-gu Popport, the water quality prediction at the time of operation after dredging, and the water quality prediction division at the time of construction for the instant project into two parts: (a) before and after the establishment of the plan to reduce the water quality before and after the implementation of the project; and (b) before and after the implementation of the project by forecasting water quality in 2006 before and after the implementation of the project.

(B) In addition, the environmental impact assessment report of this case cited the data (the results of the water quality prediction model model designed by the National Environmental Research Institute) presented by the fourth river scullar in relation to the future water quality prediction in the course of operating the project of this case, and stated that the prediction of water quality change due to the implementation of the project of this case in the future is expected to be subsequently supplemented (requesting the National Environmental Research Institute) in consideration of the changed conditions after the formulation of the master plan, and presented the results of the water quality prediction model model designed by the National Environmental Research Institute in order to forecast the water quality change after the implementation of the project of this case and to establish additional water quality improvement measures.

(C) The National Institute of Environmental Science is responsible for the change of water quality in the area and surrounding areas of the project of this case, nine of the 22 areas in the Nakdong River basin (Yandong Dam, the Andong Dam, the downstream of the Andong Dam, the Sadong Dam, the Sami, the Gu, and the Gu;

With respect to the sections of elderly, public, released, pushed, flown, and flown river (EFC4), the third dynamic repair/water quality model (EFC4) was used, and the water quality model model was implemented twice using the first static water quality model for three areas other than this Chapter. The above modeling reflects the changes by dredging, the change of water speed due to the installation of a beam, the increase of the number of times of stay, and the impact of the outbreak of algae.

(D) The National Institute of Environmental Science used the WAT Hydrological model above the river flow calculation in the basin, the HEC-LAS irrigation model in order to estimate the water quality change in the business section, and the EFD repair/water model in order to estimate the water quality change in the business section. The selection of the EFC model is because the efficiencies can be made possible to reflect the effects of the efficencies, such as the efficencies, and the efficencies can be accurately reflected in the riverbed changes after the project.

(E) The National Environmental Science Institute: ① calculates the load of pollutants for the concentration conditions of the EFC water quality model, ② calculates the load of pollutants for the EFC water flow, ③ calculates the monthly flow in the beams by the HEC -LAS model, ④ conduct water quality model in the order of EFC repair/water quality detoning to forecast water quality changes in the future. The EFC model has two kinds of EFC Hydro type, while EFC-HC-HC-Hdroop 2 types of EFC type, EFC model could only forecast water flow and water quality change forecastss are not included in EFC-Hdro change forecast, but all water flow and water quality forecasts can be predicted, and the National Environmental Science Institute could perform the EFC model using the EFC implementation model.

(F) In EFDC Flull performance, the effect that the implementation of water quality modeling by means of the EFDC Flull performance was conducted in entirety, on the ground that the Hydroynamic Module and the Module are completely integrated into the inside of this area, and it is not possible to carry out the Wster Qlux alone without the Hydroynamic Mocle, and that the water level and the water quality prediction (water quality change related to nutrition) was conducted in entirety.

(G) When applying the EFD model, the EFC model did not enter the actual value of the growth rate of birds, but entered the value of the growth rate (one reaction coefficient) under abnormal conditions.

(h) In addition, the environmental impact assessment of this case, using the EFC model, predicted the proliferation of suspended sand due to earth and sand erosion during dredging construction. During that process, scenarios were carried out in phases (1 to 4 levels) according to the type and strength of countermeasures based on the type and strength of countermeasures based on the means of mitigation, the level of earth and sand outflow was high, but in case of scenario 1 (no reduction measures) but in case of scenario 2, 3 (the prevention of sewage, the construction of water erosion, and the installation of floods), it was predicted that the installation of reduction facilities was removed at least 90%.

(i) In the instant environmental impact assessment, inasmuch as it is impossible to secure the water level of water to collect the whole quantity of the facility capacity at the time of dredging, in the case of a large-scale water intake facility, such as a lurging water intake facility, the instant environmental impact assessment is proposed to install a provisional reservoir or a water intake facility using a underwater pumps, and to partially transfer water intake facility.

(j) In addition, sections the dredging space overlaps for each construction work shall be dredging from the upstream of each construction site to the least extent possible, and the dredging line shall be secured at intervals of at least 5 km in order to ensure that there is an interval of dredging lines.

(5) Concerning the prediction of impact due to the increase in groundwater level.

(A) The environmental impact assessment of this case was presented as a result of the analysis of the impact on neighboring residential areas and farmland due to changes in management water level using the MODFLW model. In the area of a mountain district, there was a decrease of the level of groundwater level by 1m, there was no change in the level of groundwater level, and the area of a mountain district and the area of a mountain village is increasing by 2 to 4m, but there was an increase in the level of groundwater level by 16 to 25m, and there was no impact on the ground level (EL.) in the area of a mountainous district adjacent to a river, and there was no change in the level of groundwater level by the area of a mountainous district near a river.

(B) In addition, the contents of the consultation on environmental impact assessment include "the method of implementing monitoring in consultation with the local government and the National Land Association about the impact of agricultural crops on the farm land due to the increase in the level of groundwater due to the installation of the beams, which is likely to cause some impact on the farm land due to the increase in the level of groundwater due to the installation of the beams, and to take appropriate measures in the event of the occurrence of the damage." The contents of the approval of the 18 construction site project plan include "the method of implementing the monitoring in consultation with the local government and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport about the impact on the farm land due to the increase in the level of groundwater due to the installation of the beams and the occurrence of damage

[Ground for recognition] A’s non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence 4-1, 2, Eul’s evidence 6-1, 2, Eul’s evidence 7-1 through 4, Eul’s evidence 2, 3, 8, 35, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 60, Eul’s evidence 7-1, 7-2, Eul’s evidence 10-1 through 5, Eul’s evidence 46-1 through 5, Eul’s evidence 50-1 through 50, Eul’s evidence 51-1, 65-2, Eul’s evidence 65-1, 2-1, 65-2, 1, 1, 3, 3, 35, 45, 47, 48, 49, 49, 49, 49, 49, 7-2, and 51.

E) Determination

In addition to the details and contents of the relevant laws and regulations and the following circumstances, the environmental impact assessment in this case was conducted only for three months, and even if its contents are inadequate, it cannot be deemed that the degree of the defect was insufficient to the extent that the legislative purport of the environmental impact assessment system cannot be achieved, and thus, it did not differ from that of the failure to conduct the environmental impact assessment. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit. However, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion can be a single element to determine the illegality of the discretion of each of the dispositions in this case, since the degree of damage caused by construction or dredging and the appropriateness of the measures therefor can be considered at the time of determining the degree of damage and the appropriateness of the measures therefor.

(1) According to Articles 16(2) and 17(1) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and Article 23(1)9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a project implementer shall prepare an environmental impact assessment report prior to the establishment of the implementation plan or the approval of the implementation plan, and submit it to the Minister of Environment for a review and supplementation through consultation. However, the provision that requires consultation with the Minister of Environment as to the environmental impact assessment is to review the appropriateness of the environmental impact assessment and to thoroughly discuss and supplement the environmental impact resulting from the implementation of the project. As the plaintiffs' assertion, the project implementer must conduct all data and forecasts necessary for the environmental impact assessment, such as the data and the results of research conducted by a research institute affiliated with the Ministry of Environment, and it cannot be said that there is a limit on the preparation of the environmental impact assessment report (No. 208-223 of the Ministry of Environment notice). However, if there is any existing data including national survey data, ecological survey data, etc., the results of the environmental impact assessment report of this case can not be seen as the head of the Regional Construction and Management Administration of this case.

(2) The instant environmental impact assessment was reviewed and supplemented at the request of the Ministry of Environment to supplement the plan from the planning stage to the subsequent supplement, and its timing was also recognized as having been completed before the implementation plan or implementation plan was formulated or approved, and thus, it violated the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and subordinate statutes regarding the preparation timing. It cannot be seen as

(3) As seen earlier, the instant environmental impact assessment report shows the results of the water quality prediction and the impact on the environment due to the instant project, such as flood damage in some regions, and the future prediction of water quality and flooding is conducted by experts using a scientific deling method based on the brupt basic data, and its implementation process is a professional and technical area. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to contain both basic data and professional and technical matters. As such, it is practically impossible to include both basic data and professional and technical matters in the environmental impact assessment report. As long as the results of the prediction of water quality and flood and the project were carried out respectively, the residents’ announcement and public inspection of the draft of the instant assessment report and the public hearing on the draft of the assessment report did not provide all the information as claimed by the Plaintiffs to the public. Thus, the residents’ right to state opinions cannot be deemed to have been infringed.

(4) The duty to use the latest data under the provisions on the preparation, etc. of environmental impact assessment reports cannot be deemed to have been prohibited from using the past data on a daily basis. If it is deemed appropriate for the latest trend, the existing data can be used for all times. However, from 2003 to 2009, such as the examination of aquatic ecology in 2008, and the survey data in 2008, including the nationwide natural environment survey in 2008, and even if the Defendant did not conduct a field investigation over the fourth quarter, the impact assessment in this case was conducted through a field investigation in accordance with the Ministry of Environment’s notification. Thus, the review was conducted through the latest data and the field investigation at the time of the environmental impact assessment.

(5) The prediction of water quality of the National Environment and the National Institute of Environmental Research reflects the change of cross-faced water due to the dredging, the change of speed due to the installation of beams, the increase of the duration of stay, and the effect of the outbreak of algae. Considering that the effect of the growth of algae due to the rapid lowering is offset by the increase of water depth, the increase of water temperature, and the effect of blocking light, etc., it cannot be said that the project of this case was not entirely predicted, and it is difficult to view that the project of this case was not carried out as if the water quality prediction was conducted in a scientific way. Furthermore, since the core purpose of the four major projects is to improve the water quality of the four major projects, it is natural that the water quality prediction after the implementation of the four major projects rather than the water quality prediction after the implementation of the measures to reduce the impact of water quality due to the four major projects is included, and it is reasonable to predict the water quality of the four major projects.

(6) The instant project was technically verified through numerical modeling, and the model experiment was not legally enforced, but the Defendants conducted the repair model experiment at the design stage to re-verification the stability of numerical modeling.

(7) The instant environmental impact assessment points out not only the impact of the rise in groundwater level but also the impact of low-scale flood, etc. resulting therefrom, to devise measures such as expanding drainage facilities, and it is rather difficult to conclude that the scale of flood damage has been reduced as alleged by the Plaintiffs, but also points out the problems of flood damage related to bareboat security, and accordingly, to adjust the level of management through the technical consultation and resident explanation meeting to review the planned management level according to the demands of local residents. Accordingly, the environmental impact assessment in this case cannot be evaluated as not fulfilling its function.

(8) Although the initial level of security management was planned at 7.5m EL. However, it was effective to point out the impact of the environmental impact assessment on the 4 poppy plan at the design stage, to seek the reduction of the flood forecast area through the adjustment of the level of management compared with the reduction countermeasure costs, and to change the EL. 5.0m through the technical consultation and resident presentation to review the planning management level at the request of local residents. The environmental impact assessment in this case is not changed due to an error, and the scale of the project and facilities has not been changed due to the change of the management level. [Article 22 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act] It is nothing more than the subject of the change of the contents of consultation (Article 21), not the subject of re-consultation and re-consultation (Article 22 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act), since the plaintiffs' management level is the most important factor of the design, and the change itself shows that all the plans have been wrong, such as the basic plan for the reduction of the 4 poppy plan, it is difficult to accept the change of the ecological level of each water level.

(9) The plaintiffs' assertion that the effect of the prevention of erroneous erosion was exaggerated is based on ‘A evidence Nos. 8 and 140 pages'(A), but the above research service was tested in Busan New Port and Incheon Port, i.e., the sea, and it cannot be applied formally to other rivers at all. However, the defendants secured a dredging line at least 5 km at the time of dredging work, taking into account the cumulative impacts of dredging construction at the same time in the Nakdong River, after the environmental impact investigation, conducted a verification of the functions of the dredging line, such as periodic inspection of the management status of the affected land through the post environmental impact investigation, although some sand saws are temporarily damaged in the course of dredging, water quality purification functions can be weakened due to the temporary damage, but it was predicted that there was no problem in maintaining the function of the purification of water quality due to the creation of wetlands and ecological wetlands, and the result of an investigation of the pollution level at the main river surface of the project area is unlikely to be measured by the bottom.

(10) The environmental impact assessment is based on a kind of future forecast, so there is a limit to its content due to scientific and technological characteristics.

6) Whether the National Finance Act has been violated

A) The parties’ assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

There is an error of law that fails to conduct preliminary feasibility study under Article 38 (1).

Since the four major projects are group projects in which individual projects, such as the installation of beams, dredging, bank, and bicycle lanes, are closely related to each other, preliminary feasibility studies by water system should be conducted. However, the government did not conduct preliminary feasibility studies on the ground that the four major projects are divided by the contents of the four major projects and the total project cost is not more than 50 billion won, and in particular, it did not conduct preliminary feasibility studies on the ground that the construction and dredging of beams is a disaster prevention project even though the total project cost is more than 50 billion won.

In Article 13 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Finance Act, the "project requiring urgent progress for the purpose of supporting the prevention of disasters" is to disarm a preliminary feasibility study system only by the Enforcement Decree, and thus null and void beyond the delegation scope of the mother law. Even if it is not so, the installation and dredging of beams do not constitute a disaster prevention project, and it is not necessary to urgently implement it. Therefore, it does not constitute an exception project for preliminary feasibility study under Article 13 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Finance Act.

(2) The defendants' assertion

In addition, the National Finance Act is not only a basis for each of the dispositions in this case, but also a project for construction of sewage treatment plants, which is a project for construction and dredging, which is a project to be implemented urgently as a disaster prevention project under Article 13 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Finance Act among the projects in this case, and a project for construction of sewage treatment plants, which is a project to be installed or promoted in accordance with the Acts and subordinate statutes stipulated in subparagraph 7, did not conduct a preliminary feasibility study because it is excluded from a preliminary feasibility study, and other projects such as ecological rivers, bicycle lanes, dams,

Therefore, the preliminary feasibility study was conducted for the four major lecture projects including the project in this case as required by the relevant laws and regulations for each individual project unit.

B) Relevant statutes

▣ 국가재정법(2009. 5. 27. 법률 제9712호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 '구 국가재

Law of 196

Article 1 (Purpose)

This Act shall be effective by prescribing matters concerning national finance, such as the State's budget, funds, settlement of accounts, performance management, and State obligations.

The purpose is to establish a framework for high-performance-oriented and transparent financial management and sound fiscal management.

Article 38 (Preliminary Feasibility Survey)

(1) The Minister of Strategy and Finance shall prepare reserve forces in advance to compile a budget for large scale projects prescribed by Presidential Decree.

An examination of appropriateness shall be conducted.

(4) The Minister of Strategy and Finance shall investigate execution institutions and organizations for the criteria for selection of projects subject to the preliminary feasibility study under paragraph (1).

Guidelines for methods, procedures, etc. shall be prepared and notified to the head of a central government agency.

▣ 국가재정법 시행령

◎ 2009. 3. 25. 대통령령 제21360호로 개정되기 전의 것( 이하 '구 시행령'이라

(2)

Article 13 (Preliminary Feasibility Survey)

(1) "Large-scale projects prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 38 (1) of the Act means the State with a total project cost of at least 50 billion won.

A new project, the scale of which exceeds 30 billion won, which falls under any of the following:

means the business.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any of the following projects shall be excluded from the subjects of the preliminary feasibility study:

section 3.

1. A project for the construction and extension of public buildings;

2. A project to restore cultural heritage;

3. A project related to national security or national defense that requires security;

4. Projects related to inter-Korean exchange and cooperation;

5. Other essential facilities which are urgent to implement projects, such as disaster relief support, or which are obligated to be installed under Acts and subordinate statutes.

A project that has no benefit from preliminary feasibility study, such as applicable cases;

◎ 2009. 3. 25. 대통령령 제21360호로 개정된 것( 이하 '개정 시행령'이라 한다 )

Article 13 (Preliminary Feasibility Survey)

(1) "Large-scale projects prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 38 (1) of the Act means the State with a total project cost of at least 50 billion won.

A new project, the scale of which exceeds 30 billion won, which falls under any of the following:

means the business.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any of the following projects shall be subject to the preliminary feasibility study:

outside shall be outside.

1. A project for the construction and extension of public office buildings, correctional facilities, and facilities for elementary and secondary education;

2. A project to restore cultural heritage;

3. A project related to national security or national defense that requires security;

4. Projects related to inter-Korean exchange and cooperation or implemented under an agreement or treaty between countries;

5. Simple improvement and maintenance workers for improving the utility of existing facilities, such as road maintenance and improvement of old water supply facilities;

6. Urgent promotion is necessary due to the prevention of disasters and restoration support, securing of facility safety, health, food safety issues, etc.;

Korea Project

7. Projects that shall be established or promoted under statutes;

8. Simple income transfer, such as direct payment of cash and spot benefits to beneficiaries, such as recipients of basic livelihood benefits and persons with disabilities;

business for the purpose of

9. There is no practical benefit in the preliminary feasibility study, such as subsidization of personnel expenses and ordinary expenses, financing projects, etc. of subsidized or subsidized institutions;

the business.

10. Matters necessary to be promoted as a national policy for balanced regional development, response to urgent economic and social situations, etc.;

Business determined by the Minister of Strategy and Finance

C) the facts of recognition

(1)The 're-preventive Project' was amended by Article 13, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Finance Act, which provides for a project excluded from preliminary feasibility studies on March 25, 2009, for which the 4 plenary franchise was specifically reviewed, was added as a project excluded from preliminary feasibility studies.

(2) Pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Amendment, preliminary feasibility studies have been conducted for each project for the four major courses, and the detailed status of preliminary feasibility studies is as follows:

(1) Installation of a beam, dredging, rainfall reservoir, flood control area, discharge bank, and discharge bank: Article 13 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act.

Exclusion from preliminary feasibility studies on the ground that the urgency is recognized as a disaster prevention project of subparagraph 6 of the same paragraph.

(2) Creation of ecological rivers: Eight districts with a total project cost of at least 50 billion won among 215 districts in a total of at least a total of at least 20 billion won (low-do districts and village reserve forces)

Implementation of the area, gymnasium district, gymnasium district, gymnasium district, gymnasium district, galmnasium district, galmna

(3) Bicycle lanes: Implementation of a river system of the Nakdong River system with a total project cost of at least 50 billion won, out of a total of 1,728 meters, by 743 meters.

(4) Construction of dams: Implementation of two of three ports (Yansansan Dam and permanent dam).

(5) Agricultural reservoir: Six places in total working expenses of at least 50 billion won (Naju reservoir, Gwangju reservoir, and warships), among 96 places in total.

Enforcement of the same reservoir, the long-term reservoir, the storm-gu reservoir, the sloping reservoir, and the white-dried reservoir)

(6) Construction of sewage treatment plants: Installation or promotion under the statutes referred to in Article 13 (2) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Finance Act.

Exclusion from preliminary feasibility studies on the ground that the project is required to be

(3) In ordering whether a project falls under a preliminary feasibility study under Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance shall reflect the budget without separate procedures if it is apparent that the project falls under the above Enforcement Decree, and, if it is unclear whether the above Enforcement Decree is applicable, it shall be reviewed at the request of the relevant Ministry, and it shall be determined whether the project is an exemption project from preliminary feasibility study by gathering opinions from the financial project evaluation advisory council within the Ministry of Strategy and Finance in which private experts and government delegates

(4) Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 38(4) of the National Finance Act, the Minister of Strategy and Finance established guidelines for the operation of preliminary feasibility studies in 2009. Article 9(1) of the Guidelines provides that "The units of projects subject to preliminary feasibility studies shall, in principle, be based on the current budget and fund structural project." Article 9(3) provides that "The preliminary feasibility study shall be conducted in principle for a group of projects (PPk management) composed of multiple individual unit projects, such as regional development, tourist resort development, etc." However, Article 38(4) provides that "The preliminary feasibility study may be conducted by combining two or more unit projects, taking into account the characteristics, purposes, and methods of implementation of the project." However, Article 38(4) provides that "Where the total project cost of the unit projects meet the requirements subject to preliminary feasibility study, it may be conducted by combining two or more unit projects as a single project."

(5) Since the Ministry of Strategy and Finance has functioned to control projects, such as the installation of beams, dredging, removal reinforcement, and the installation of low-scale banks, it is called a project with the main purpose of preventing disasters in advance as stipulated in the Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety, and Countermeasures against Natural Disasters, and it is concluded that there is a possibility of unexpected accidents if the water control measures for the four major projects are delayed due to rapid climate change, and that there is an urgent concern for serious damage in the event of large-scale disasters.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, testimony of a witness of the court of first instance and witness of the court of first instance, purport of whole pleadings

D) Determination

Under the detailed reasoning, if the part of the "re-prevention of harm" under Article 13 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act is interpreted to be excluded from the object of preliminary feasibility study for the reason that it is natural disaster prevention with respect to the state-owned business in which large scale finances are invested like the project in this case, this cannot be recognized as being against the legislative intent of the National Finance Act, which is the mother, and it cannot be recognized as an interpretation beyond the scope delegated by the National Finance Act. ② Even if the effect is recognized, the installation of beams among the project in this case cannot be deemed as a disaster prevention project, and it cannot be deemed as an urgent project so as to exempt the preliminary feasibility study. Nevertheless, the defendants' failure to undergo the preliminary preliminary examination on the project such as the installation of beams and dredging among the project in this case is against Article 38 (1) of the National Finance Act.

In addition, the procedural defect that did not conduct a preliminary feasibility study is an inherent defect in each disposition of this case itself, and it cannot be deemed that it is merely a defect in the separate budget compilation from each disposition of this case, and there is no room to interpret it as merely a defect in the prior procedure to go beyond the subsequent procedural phase.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is reasonable, and each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful.

(1) General theory of preliminary feasibility study system

(a) the significance and necessity of the preliminary feasibility study system

The preliminary feasibility study was introduced in 199 in order to supplement the problems of the existing feasibility study (Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act at the time), and the National Finance Act that combines the existing Budget and Accounts Act and the Framework Act on Fund Management was enacted in 2006 and implemented in January 1, 2007, and the preliminary appropriateness study was strengthened as a legislative matter.

The previous feasibility study is based on the premise of project implementation as a fact of fact, focusing on technical review and preliminary design, and is conducted by the project implementation department to focus on technical feasibility such as technical feasibility, so it could not have any influence on the judgment of priority order between administrative purposes (including the waiver of project implementation) and administrative purposes that the administrative entity intends to achieve through the implementation of the project in question.

Therefore, the preliminary feasibility study is conducted under the supervision of the Minister of Strategy and Finance, and unlike the existing feasibility study, the purpose is to provide information to examine whether the project is implemented, to examine alternatives, and to determine priorities between policy projects for other administrative items by comprehensively assessing the policy feasibility and economic feasibility of the project in the pre-existing stage of the project feasibility decision.

In other words, the purpose of the preliminary feasibility study is to ensure the soundness of national finance by establishing the preliminary feasibility study ? Feasibility study ? design ? compensation ?, in principle, for the projects deemed inappropriate in the preliminary feasibility study phase by setting up and executing the budget gradually in the order of national economy, not only can prevent any waste of financial resources by preventing further budget compilation for the subsequent procedures, but also to establish the standard guidelines for the preliminary feasibility study so as to ensure objectivity of the results of feasibility analysis by preparing a standard guidelines for the preliminary feasibility study and to ensure the standardization of the results of feasibility analysis and to ensure the reasonable and effective implementation of limited finances by making possible choice between the relevant projects and alternatives or decision-making of priority among the relevant projects, and ultimately by investing limited financial resources into a reasonable and effective project. Thus, the preliminary feasibility study is the basic purpose of the preliminary feasibility study to determine whether to implement the relevant project at a national economic level and to enable efficient allocation of financial resources with limited budgets

(b) Method of preliminary feasibility study;

First, by analyzing the outline of the project and basic data, the issues of the project are emphasized, second, the economic analysis is conducted through the estimation of demand, benefits, and expenses, third, the national economic importance of the project is identified through a policy analysis through the analysis of regional economic ripple effects, the evaluation of regional impacts, the evaluation of the possibility of financing, the evaluation of the possibility of environmental assessment, etc. Fourth, by utilizing multiple-standard analysis (AHP5).

(c) limitations on preliminary feasibility studies.

In particular, economic analysis of water resource sector projects is not sufficient to secure objectivity of research results through standardization of project feasibility analysis methods, such as lack of demand for water supply, lack of estimated data for production, lack of agricultural production estimates, lack of basic data for application of the travel expense law, lack of basic data such as travel expense rate, lack of travel expenses, lack of predicted data such as prediction data such as the shortage of basic travel expense rates to apply travel expense law, lack of travel expenses, and various kinds of available data for estimation of payment amount due to surveys (e.g., difficulty of financial evaluation of water quality improvement benefits, prediction of profit for reduction of flood damage and difficulty of measurement, etc.). Therefore, the current academic outcome is insufficient to ensure objectivity of research results through standardization of project feasibility analysis methods.

(d) Results of preliminary feasibility studies;

It is reasonable that the Ministry of Strategy and Finance has contributed to enhancing the financial efficiency and soundness by preventing estimated budget compilation through preventing 162 cases (43%) by conducting a total of 378 preliminary investigation from 1999 to 2008.

(2) Whether the contents of the instant project are excluded from preliminary feasibility studies

To be exempted from preliminary feasibility studies on the project of this case, first, the added part of the "disaster prevention" in Article 13 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act should not go beyond the scope of delegation by the mother law, second, the contents of the project of this case (in particular, the establishment of beams) should fall under the accident prevention project of this case, and third, the urgency should be recognized to the extent that the project of this case is exempted from preliminary feasibility studies.

We examine whether the instant project satisfies the above three requirements.

(A) The effects of the amended enforcement decree

In light of the following circumstances in which the purpose and purpose of the preliminary feasibility study system as seen earlier and the witness movement of the party and the witness of the first instance trial, and the whole purport of the pleading can be combined with each of the testimony of the witness of the party Hong ○○○, as seen earlier, the additional part of the "disaster prevention project" under Article 13 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act is applied to the national accounting project that is a large-scale financing for the four major major projects. However, it cannot be recognized as an interpretation beyond the scope of delegation, contrary to the legislative purpose of the National Finance Act, which is the mother corporation, as it goes beyond the scope of delegation.

① As a result of the economic feasibility analysis (e.g., profit and expense ratio) published through a preliminary feasibility study, the government's announcements were 2.3, whereas the opposing view is that there was a big controversy about the administrative litigation against the "Semanmang Project". In fact, the most controversial issue of the administrative litigation against the "Semang Project" was the appropriateness of the cost/expenses ratio announced by the government. The amendment period of Article 13(2) of the former Enforcement Decree overlaps with the period of the establishment of 15 March 25, 2009 of the 20th 4th 4th 4th 5th 5th 5th 6th 4th 4th 5th 5th 5th 4th 5th 4th 5th 4th 4th 5th 4th 4th 5th 4th 5th 4th 4th 5th 4th 4th 5th 4th 4th 5th 4th 4th 5th 5th 2th 4th 5th 5th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 5th 5.

② As seen earlier, it is more appropriate to pursue the vision and objectives of the same project in the four major river master plans, to fundamentally resolve water shortage and flood damage, improve the quality of life and leisure culture of the people, improve the quality of life of the river, promote the regional economy as a green New Zealand project, and enhance national competitiveness as the global scale for water management. As a plan for embodying this, it is more appropriate to evaluate the four major river projects as a single project by combining two or more unit projects as stipulated in Article 9(4) of the Guidelines for the Preliminary Feasibility Research and Operation of the 2009. Therefore, it is desirable to conduct a preliminary feasibility study as a single project by combining two or more unit projects for each water system.

③ Although there is a need to set forth a project excluded from preliminary feasibility studies flexibly and flexibly due to sudden changes in economic and social circumstances, such aspect is prescribed comprehensively and openly under Article 13(2)5 of the former Enforcement Decree, which could sufficiently cope with the need, and the revision of the Enforcement Decree was not significant.

④ Although there may be considerable controversy over the values of the study of feasibility due to the limit of basic data and information, the difficulty in methodology, etc., the Red ○○ professor of the Seoul National University Environmental Graduate School who analyzed the outline of convenience and expense ratio for the project of this case, and evaluated that the convenience/expenses ratio from 0.26 to 0.11 according to the scenario of maintenance and management costs and at least the light feasibility is very insufficient. On the other hand, the government judged that the project was excluded from the preliminary feasibility study on the basis of the friendly Enforcement Decree of the friendly amendment, such as installation of beams and dredging, and thus, it did not present any numerical value related to the economic gender analysis.

⑤ In light of the fact that the preliminary feasibility study system is aimed at determining whether a new project is implemented that involves the expansion of a large-scale financial site rather than simply compilation of budget, and it functions as a procedural control method (such as self-control method by the administration or judicial control method) in establishing an administrative plan with a wide range of discretion in order to promote the soundness of national finance, it goes against the legislative purpose of the National Finance Act, which is the mother, to avoid controversy over the value of feasibility analysis by excluding the instant project from the subject of preliminary feasibility study by amending the Enforcement Decree.

6. Since 199, a preliminary feasibility study system has been introduced, a project which fails to conduct a preliminary feasibility study in a large national book project in which at least 50 billion won of construction cost has been provided by the National Treasury for at least 30 billion won has been provided, except for the four major courses in this case.

7. The additionally inserted part of the "disaster prevention project" in Article 13 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act is likely to operate a soft clause contrary to the sound national finance, even if there is a risk that the executive branch may cause a brupt of national finance due to the implementation of the project, if it is urgently required to implement the project under the name of the "disaster prevention project".

(3) Whether the installation of beams in the contents of the instant project constitutes a disaster prevention project

The contents of the 4 major river stream franchise as seen earlier, and even according to the Defendants’ assertion, it is apparent that the construction of 8 beams flying along the Nakdongdong River among the business contents of the instant case is aimed at securing water resources (specificly, the purpose of securing water for living, agricultural or industrial water, and water for industrial use, is not to secure water resources), and the construction of beams is bound to reduce the flow of the river, so there is no molding structure that increases flood risk. The Defendants asserted that the entire structure of beams is not as high information, but as part of the sections are equipped with flood control functions to a certain extent by creating a floodgate-type operation manual, it cannot be deemed that the installation of beams is a flood prevention, and that it should be viewed as offset or offset the increase of flood risk caused by the installation of beams with the main purpose of securing water resources, and that the construction of beams is not different by adopting a structure of operation of beams.

In addition, even if the main purpose of the installation of the Boan is to secure water resources that cover water shortage situations caused by climate change in the future, the defendants' own assertion that water resources are to secure water flow for living, agricultural and industrial purposes, other than water supply, and industrial water supply, and thus it is difficult to view it as disaster prevention projects.

Therefore, the installation of beams among the contents of the instant project cannot be deemed as a disaster prevention project.

(4) Whether installation of beams and urgency of dredging among the project contents of the instant case is recognized

The facts and the purport of the above-mentioned facts, namely, ① the period required for the preliminary feasibility study in 2008 under the guidelines for the operation of the preliminary feasibility study shall be limited to 6 months, and the period of time required for the preliminary feasibility study in 2009 shall be reduced to 3 to 4 months. ② To recognize the urgency of time to conduct the preliminary feasibility study in 22 to 6 months long, it is difficult for the general public to consider that the preliminary feasibility study should be conducted in a sound common sense, and it is difficult to easily obtain it from the preliminary feasibility study by gathering consensus from the advisory council in which the private experts and government delegates participate, and it is difficult to use the preliminary feasibility study to ensure that the preliminary feasibility study is conducted within 20 years long as it is necessary to ensure that the preliminary feasibility study is conducted without any specific basis or method to determine urgency, ③ It is difficult for the Defendants to use the preliminary feasibility study to ensure that the preliminary feasibility study is conducted within the range of 20 years long.

Therefore, since the project of this case, such as the installation and dredging of beams among the project of this case does not go through the preliminary investigation procedure as provided by the related laws, there is a defect in violation of Article 38 (1) of the National Finance Act.

(5) Defects without conducting preliminary feasibility studies and the relationship between the instant disposition

The purpose of the preliminary feasibility study is to prevent waste of financial resources by preventing further budget compilation for the subsequent phase by preventing the large-scale new government projects subject to the preliminary feasibility study system from being implemented, and to ensure the soundness of national finance by inserting limited financial resources into a reasonable, effective and excessive project by making it possible to determine the priority order between the business and other projects, and ultimately, to promote the soundness of national finance. Accordingly, the preliminary feasibility study is the basic purpose of the preliminary feasibility study to determine whether to implement the project at the national economic level and reasonably determine the priority order between the projects, and to enable efficient distribution of financial resources with limited budget.

In addition, the preliminary feasibility study procedure is a procedure to determine the progress of the project in question or the order of priority between other businesses through economic feasibility analysis and policy analysis at the stage of establishing the administrative plan on the large scale national project subject to the preliminary feasibility study. Since the process of preliminary feasibility study is an essential procedure to properly balance between the public interest in question and the public interest in question, and between the public interest in question and the private interest that is infringed thereby, it is an omission of the procedure of preliminary feasibility study in establishing the project plan subject to the preliminary feasibility study in itself, and it is not only a violation of the relevant law, but also a omission of procedural balance related to the administrative plan.

Although the preliminary feasibility study is the first stage of determining whether to implement a large scale new national project, and it is possible to compile a budget including the next stage of feasibility study, in light of the purpose and purport of the preliminary feasibility study system as seen earlier, and the procedural importance of determining whether to implement a large scale national project, even if it is merely a prior procedure to compile a budget at the next stage and did not undergo it, it cannot be deemed that the defect is cured or not succeeded to the defect of each disposition of this case, and the defect that does not undergo a preliminary feasibility study is an inherent defect in each disposition of this case, which is based on each disposition of this case, even if the project of this case was completed.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise.

E) Sub-decisions

Each of the dispositions of this case is illegal because it has not undergone the preliminary investigation of gender, which is a procedural provision required by Article 38(1) of the National Treasury Act.

7) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused or not

As seen earlier, each of the dispositions of this case is illegal on the grounds that there is a defect in violation of the National Finance Act. Therefore, without considering whether or not the plaintiffs’ remaining asserted deviation or abuse of discretionary power, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful, but it is not irrelevant to the necessity of the judgment of the circumstances that are to be judged later, and it is to proceed to the determination of legitimacy of this part of the assertion in consideration of the seriousness of the case.

A) Relationship between the principle of proportionality and the control of planning discretion

As stated in all of the above 'the legality of each of the dispositions in this case', the doctrine of planning discretion is related to the defect in the balancing of interests. The principle of proportionality, which is a general principle of control of administrative discretion, cannot be applied to the planning discretion that recognizes the freedom of broad formation, and it is reasonable to view that the principle of proportionality, which is a general principle of control of administrative discretion, is a legal principle that replaces or alters the principle of proportionality that applies to general discretion, and that it is a principle of limited discretion to planning discretion.

In order to determine whether each disposition of this case constitutes an administrative plan, which constitutes both the implementation plan of river works and the announcement of the approval of the implementation plan of river works, and thus, constitutes an unlawful act of deviation or abuse of planning discretion, each disposition of this case must be determined whether there is an omitted sentence, erroneous sentence, objectivity or legitimacy in establishing the administrative plan, and whether there is a difference in such a defect, which can be recognized as having been a deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

Meanwhile, it is not necessary to assert and prove that the administrative disposition is unlawful as it goes beyond the bounds of discretionary power, even though the person who contests the validity of the administrative disposition must assert and prove and the disposition agency was a party to exercise its discretionary power (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu861 delivered on December 8, 1987).

Therefore, it is judged comprehensively in accordance with the legal principles as to balancing the plaintiffs' arguments that seem to be based on the principle of proportionality.

B) Plaintiffs’ assertion

The plaintiffs asserts that each of the dispositions of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority due to the defect of balancing for the following reasons.

(1) With respect to the necessity of flood prevention and the propriety of the means, ① the instant project is inconsistent with the upper plan, including the basin comprehensive plan and the basic plan for river plans, ② the dredging for flood prevention does not coincide with the actual area of the flood damage and the project execution area, and is not presented as a valid and appropriate alternative in the basin comprehensive flood control plan. ③ The lower portion of the Nakdong River has already been lowered, ③ the national river is maintaining almost all sections of the national river, and most sections of the national river have been secured with a sufficient amount of more than 2 meters, ④ dredging is not proper as a means of flood prevention; ④ it is not proper as a means of flood prevention; ⑤ In particular, the installation of beams works as a structure to increase the flood risk and cannot be said to have a function of flood prevention. In light of the above, the instant river maintenance project is not only recognized, but also it is not an appropriate means of flood prevention.

(2) With respect to the need to secure water and the propriety of the means, ① in the long-term comprehensive water resources plan formulated to alter and maintain the water quality in 2006, it is not appropriate to secure the water shortage of 1.2 billion won in the river zone by region, ② in the long-term comprehensive water resources plan to maintain and maintain the water quality of 1.4 billion won in the river zone, ② to secure the water shortage of 1.7 billion won in the river basin throughout the country in 201 and to secure the water flow of 8 billion in the river basin because it is not necessary to secure the water flow of 1.7 billion won in the river basin, ② to secure the water shortage of 6 billion in the river basin and to maintain the water quality of 3 billion in the river basin, ③ to secure the water flow of 8 billion in the river basin because it is very different from the water demand forecast in the river basin plan in this case, ③ to ensure the water flow of 100 million won in the river basin, even if it is not necessary to secure the water flow of 8% in the river basin.

(3) First, with respect to the adequacy of the water quality improvement method, prediction and countermeasures, ① the installation of beams which were adopted by the instant business as a water quality improvement measure, and dredging of sed soil would deteriorate water quality, rather than water quality improvement, so the instant business cannot be an appropriate means to realize the purpose of water quality improvement, ② the omission of growth potential of tidal currents due to the increase in water quality, ② the omission of growth potential due to the increase in water quality, the decrease in water depth, the impact of dredging on water quality, ③ the decrease in water flow due to the installation and dredging of beams, the growth of tidal currents would be seriously increased due to the increase in water quality, ③ the change in water quality quality by 00 to 20 years from the point of view of water pollution before and after the rapid change in water pollution, ④ the change in water pollution from the point of view of 20 to the point of view of water pollution before and after the rapid change in water pollution, ④ the change in water pollution from the point of rural water pollution before and after the rapid change in water pollution level.

Second, with respect to forecast and countermeasures against damage caused by the installation of the Boan River, the environmental impact assessment in this case is likely to affect part of the farmland near the river due to changes in the groundwater level in the case of Hacheon River, and the groundwater level in the case of the river information section from the Hacheon River to the river, but according to the results of the plaintiff's study, the groundwater level in the case of Hacheon River to the Hacheon River, at least 2.3m from 6m to 1m, and at least 3m in the case of the Hacheon River, and at least 5.0m from the EL.5m.0m, the flood area is predicted to be approximately 4m in the EL. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20140, Mar. 0, 200; Presidential Decree No. 20100, Mar. 24, 2005>

Third, dredging of the main stream of the Nakdong River due to dredging is likely to cause detailed drilling or erosion on the structure, such as the mouth of the main stream of the Nakdong River, which is installed on the river floor, along with the erosion of the main stream of the Nakdong River, with a high height of the river basin of the main stream of the Nakdong River, and to create a scrupt or erosioning phenomenon (hereinafter referred to as "scrual erosion that occurs to a structure"), which is combined with the main stream of the Nakdong River, and continues to be implemented on the surface of the river basin with a high level of subsidence of the main stream of the river, with a high level of subsidence of the main stream of the river basin, and to be implemented on the surface of the river basin due to the collapse of the main stream of the Nakdong River, and to decrease the floor of the main stream of the river basin due to the collapse of the river basin, and to increase the construction of the river section by the time of the outbreak of the two parallels of the river basin, by the time of the outbreak of the new stream of the river basin.

C) Determination

In full view of the facts and circumstances revealed by the Plaintiffs regarding the determination factors of deviation from and abuse of discretionary power, the following facts and circumstances revealed by the Defendants do not seem to be somewhat insufficient in predicting the impacts of the implementation of the project. However, in full, the necessity and the propriety of the project of this case cannot be denied. Therefore, in each disposition of this case, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, either did not perform the profit balancing at all or omitted matters to be included in those subject to consideration of the profit balancing, or did not lack legitimacy and objectivity. The contents of each disposition of this case are determined to be within the discretionary scope that the Defendants may choose as a means to achieve the goal.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that each of the dispositions of this case is erroneous in deviation from or abuse of the planning discretion is without merit.

(1) 홍수예방의 필요성 및 수단의 적정성과 관련하여, ① 4대강 마스트플랜의 수립으로 유역종합계획과 하천기본계획을 수정 · 보완하게 하여 상위계획을 변경시키는 결과가 되어 적절하다고 할 수는 없으나, 상위계획과의 부정합성은 해소되었다고 할 수 있는 점 , ② 보의 설치는 용수확보를 목적으로 하고, 홍수예방수단이 될 수 없는 점 은 앞서 살펴본 바와 같으나, 갑 제13, 15, 18, 19호증, 갑 제16,20호증의 각 1, 2, 을 제2, 3호증, 을 제16호증의 1, 2의 각 기재와 제1심 증인 신현석 , 당심 및 제1심 증인 박창근의 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사 실 , 즉 우리나라의 과거 홍수발생 규모의 대규모화, 빈도수의 증가에 따라 홍수피해도 대규모화되는 추세인 사실, 특히 최근 이상기후 변화( 엘니뇨(EL. Nino), 라니냐(La Nina ) 등)의 결과로 국지적이고 이동성 강한 집중호우의 발생빈도 증가 , 최근 낙동강 유역 강우량의 변동성의 증가, 강우의 계절적 편중 등의 현상이 심화되는 사실, 반면에 2006년 기준으로 낙동강 수계 개수율은 완전개수율7) 63.27 %, 불완전개수율 16.34 % 등 합계 79.61% 이고, 2008년 기준에 의하면 완전개수율 74.34%, 불완전개수율 15.21%, 미 개수율 10.45 % 인 사실, 낙동강에 제방 여유고 2m가 확보되지 않은 구간은 낙동강 하 구부터 양산천 합류 후 지점까지 연장 21.47㎞이고, 이 사건 사업의 시행으로 연장 3.39㎞를 제외한 나머지 구간도 제방 여유고 2m가 확보되는 사실, 2006년에 보완된 수자원장기종합계획 수립 당시 실시한 홍수피해잠재능(PDF, Potential Flood Damage ) 분석결과 각 권역별 홍수위험도는, 한강 30, 낙동강 33, 금강 21, 섬진강 15, 영산강 14, 제주도 4로 나타난 사실, 최근 태풍 루사, 매미 및 2006년 집중호우시 왜관수위관 측소의 과거 수위기록은 26.61m, 26.86m 및 25.66m로서 계획홍수위보다 낮았지만 경 계수위보다는 높게 나타난 사실, 2002년 홍수 및 2003년 태풍 매미로 인하여 지류뿐 아니라 낙동강 본류에 설치된 상당수의 제방도 많은 피해를 입었고, 낙동강 수위 상승 으로 누수 발생 및 제방 유실이 그 원인으로 파악되고 있는 사실, 과거 정부는 2002년 집중호우와 태풍 루사로 인한 대규모 수해에 대한 대책으로 계획 · 제안된 수해방지 대 책의 주요 내용은 국가하천에 대한 기존 제방 보강, 이상 홍수에 대비한 하천시설물 설계기준 및 빈도 강화이고, 2003년부터 2010년까지 수계종합정비 · 하천정비 및 댐 건 설 · 보강 등 사업에 34조 6천억 원의 투자할 계획을 수립한 적이 있는 사실, 이 사건 사업내용 중 홍수예방을 위한 대책으로는 퇴적토 준설, 홍수조절지 설치, 노후제방 보 강 , 하굿둑 배수문 증설 등이 있는 사실, 게다가 보의 수문을 완전히 개방하는 조건으 로 실시된 홍수위 시뮬레이션 결과에 의하면 , 보의 설치에도 불구하고, 준설(4.4억㎥), 영주댐 건설, 농업용 저수지 증고 등 이 사건 사업의 시행으로 홍수위가 0.9m~3.9m 낮아지는 것으로 분석되었는데, 이 사건 사업이 시행되고 있던 2011. 7.경의 집중호우 시와 과거 동일한 규모의 홍수량이 흘렀을 때를 비교한 결과, 낙동강 상주지점은 홍수 위가 3.78m 정도로 저하되어 이 사건 사업 시행 전과 비교하여 홍수위는 크게 저하된 것으로 나타난 사실 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 사업(특히 준설) 구간에 대하여 미래 기후 변화 등으로 발생 가능한 홍수의 양상과 그 피해를 예측하여 대책을 수립하는 차 원에서 낙동강 본류의 대규모 홍수피해를 예방할 필요성이 있음을 부정할 수 없고, 사 업시행 후의 홍수예방 효과도 어느 정도 실증적으로 증명되었다고 평가할 수 있으므 로 , 이 사건 하천정비사업 중 홍수예방의 필요성이 인정되지 않는다거나 준설은 홍수 예방을 위한 유효적절한 수단도 아니라는 원고들의 주장은 받아들일 수 없다 .

(2) 용수확보의 필요성과 수단의 적정성과 관련하여, 위 증거들과 이 법원의 한 국건설기술원장에 대한 사실조회결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사실, 즉 수자원장기종합계획에서는 강별 하천유지용수량의 산정 시 대하 천에 설정된 수질보전유량과 관련하여 물리적 공급가능성을 고려해 공급의 한계가 있 는 경우에는 현재 공급 가능한 적응관리 유량으로 낮추어 설정하였음을 밝히고 있는 데, 낙동강의 경우 2급수를 유지하기 위해서는 2011년에 79 /초의 하천유지유량이 필 요하나 67 / 초로 낮추어 설정한 사실, 2006. 8. 28.자 낙동강홍수통제소 고시 제2006 년 -45호로 낙동강 본류(지점 : 진동)의 평균 갈수량 기준 하천유지유량은 61m /초로 고 시된 사실, 4대강 마스터플랜에서는 물수요량 전망에 대해 위 수자원장기종합계획의 내용을 그대로 인용하면서, 전국 물 부족량이 2011년에는 7.97억 ', 2016년에는 9.75억 m' 이 될 것으로 예측하고 있고 4대강 주요 지점의 하천유지용수 부족을 고려하면 2016년에는 17억 이상의 물을 확보할 필요가 있다고 밝히면서 장래 물 부족(2011년 8억 , 2016년 10억㎡ )과 가뭄에 대비하여, 용수 확보량을 13.0억㎡(낙동강의 경우 10.2억 )로 증대할 계획을 수립하고 있고, 구체적인 용수확보 방안으로 준설과 보 설 치, 중소규모 댐 건설, 농업용 저수지 증고를 계획한 사실, 우리나라의 1인당 수자원 개발량은 293m으로 미국의 9%, 태국의 29%, 일본의 42 % 에 불과하고, 특히 낙동강은 용수전용 댐( 10년 빈도 가뭄 대비) 및 하천수의 비중이 커서 가뭄에 취약하고, 실제 1967년 ~1968년 가뭄 시 하천유지유량은 27㎡/초에 불과하였고, 2009년 가뭄은 50년 빈도를 넘은 사실, 이 사건 사업이 추진되기 전인 2006년에 작성된 수자원장기종합계 획 보고서에 의하더라도 낙동강유역에 물이 부족할 것으로 예측되었고, 국제연합환경 계획(UNEP)과 아시아태평양경제사회계획(ESCAP)의 보고서에서도 우리나라를 물부족 국가로 분류하고 있는 사실, 4대강 마스트플랜 수립 당시 2006년에 보완된 수자원장기 종합계획에서 제시된 생활용수, 공업용수, 농업용수는 변경되지 않고 위 수자원장기종 합계획 수립 후에야 하천유지유량 관리지점에 대한 추가 고시된 60개 지점의 하천유지 용수 확보에 필요한 물부족 상황을 재평가하여 반영하였으나 구체적인 통계자료를 제 시하지는 않은 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고 , 위 인정사실과 앞서 든 증거들 및 갑 제21 호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 이 사건 마스터플랜의 물 부족 예상량은 2006년 수자원장기종합계획상의 물 부족 예상량 에 추가 고시된 하천유지유량 관리지점의 증가로 인한 물부족 상황을 반영하여 부족한 용수량을 추가로 확보할 수단으로 보의 설치 및 준설을 통하여 용수량 10.2억㎥를 목 표치로 설정한 것이어서 그 구체적인 자료나 근거가 다소 부족하지만, 수자원장기종합 계획에서 물 부족 예상량 산정 시 사용한 낙동강의 하천유지용수량(67㎡/ 초 )은, 2006. 8. 28.자 낙동강홍수통제소 고시 낙동강 본류의 평균 갈수량 기준 하천유지유량(61m / 초)보다 조금 더 증가된 것으로서, 본래 수질보전을 위해 필요한 수량(79m / 초 )에 미치 지 못하고 있어 4대강 마스터플랜은 하천유지용수 부족을 고려해 2016년에는 17억m 이상의 물 확보가 필요하게 될 것임을 언급하면서, 4대강 사업을 통해 13억의용수 를 확보하고, 추가적인 용수확보를 위한 신규 댐의 추가건설도 추진하고 있어 용수확 보의 필요성이 없다고 할 수 없는 점, ② 하천유지용수는 근본적으로는 낙동강 본류의 외부에서 유입되는 유량에 가장 큰 영향을 받으므로 본류의 하천유지유량의 증대는 본 류 외부인 지류 등에서 용수공급이 되어야 실효성이 있는 것은 사실이나, 하천유지유 량은 낙동강 구간 전체에 걸쳐 일정한 것이 아니고 이 사건 사업은 낙동강을 직선하천 으로 만드는 것이 아니므로 자연하천의 특성상 하천지점에 따라 하천유지유량이 달라 지게 되는바( 이는 낙동강 본류의 하천유지유량의 측정지점이 8곳으로 늘어났고, 고시 된 최소 하천유지유량도 측정지점 8곳이 모두 다르게 고시된 것을 보아도 쉽게 알 수 있다), 이와 달리 하천유지유량이 낙동강 구간 전체에 걸쳐 일정하다는 전제에서 외부 에서 공급되지 않는 한 낙동강 본류 내부에 보를 설치하여 하천유지유량을 확보하겠다. 는 것은 개념 내재적으로 허구라는 원고들의 주장은 그 전제가 타당하다고 볼 수 없는 점, ③ 투입되는 재정규모에 비추어 보의 설치가 일정한 하천유지유량을 공급하기 위 한 용수확보를 주된 목적으로 하는 점에서 적절성에 의문이 없지 않으나, 보의 설치가 하천유지용수확보만이 유일한 목적이라 할 수 없고, 앞서 본 4대강 사업의 비전과 목 표 및 과제에서 인정한 바와 같이 장래 이상 기후변화로 인한 물 부족을 대비한다는 측면과 4대강 사업의 각 사업내용이 서로 연계되어 전체적인 목표를 추구하는 측면을 고려하면, 보의 설치가 부적정하다고 단정하기 어려운 점, ④ 낙동강 권역은 정기적인 가뭄 등 자연재해의 발생, 미흡한 수자원 개발, 용수부족 예상량의 증가 및 수질악화로 인해 적정한 하천수량을 확보할 필요성이 있는 점, ⑤ 전체 필요 용수량의 확보뿐 아 니라, 이상 기후 대비, 수생태계 복원 및 레저공간 활용 등 다양한 용도로 사용할 목적 에서 계획 용수확보량을 설정한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 사업을 통하여 충분한 전체 용수량을 안정적으로 확보하여 단계적, 거시적 차원에서 수자원을 확보할 수 있 고, 전체적인 용수 부족 문제에 대한 근본적인 해결책으로도 기능할 수 있어, 낙동강 본류의 용수확보 필요성을 완전히 부정할 수 없고, 그렇다면 보의 설치 및 준설이 그 용수확보의 실질적인 수단이 됨이 분명하므로, 용수확보의 필요성이 인정되지 않거나 보의 설치 및 준설이 용수확보를 위한 유효적절한 수단도 아니라는 원고들의 주장은 받아들일 수 없다.

(4) With respect to the insolvency of forecasts and countermeasures

In most of the plaintiffs' arguments, as examined in the judgment on whether the environmental impact assessment violates the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, I would like to examine this part within the extent that it is not overlapped.

(A) As to the adequacy of water quality improvement measures, prediction of water quality and measures

위 증거들과 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는다음과 같은 사 실 , 즉 ① 4대강 마스터플랜에 따른 낙동강 수질개선대책의 내용은, (a) 전체 22개 중 권역 중 COD, TP 수질오염도(10년 추이)가 상승했거나 주변에 비해 오염도(3년 평균 ) 가 높고 대규모 상수원이 있는 10개 유역(최우선관리 1개(금호강), 핵심관리 3개(낙동 왜관 , 낙동고령, 남강), 중점관리 6개(낙동상주 , 낙동구미, 낙동창녕, 남강댐, 낙동밀양 , 낙동강하구언))을 중점관리 유역으로 선정하여 오염도가 높은 COD, 특히 조류발생 인자 인 TP에 대한 저감대책을 추진하고, (b) 환경정책기본법 시행령에 COD, TP 하천수질 환경기준을 신설하며 , (c) TP 등 환경기초시설 방류수질기준을 강화(선진화)하고, (d) 오 염도가 높은 낙동강 10개 유역 내 환경기초시설( 하수 · 폐수종말처리시설 고도화, 생활 하수처리시설 확충, 하수관거 정비, 산업폐수종말처리시설 신설 · 증설 · 화학적 처리시 설 설치, 가축분뇨 공공처리시설 확충 등 )을 확충 · 고도화하며, (e) 비점오염원 저감대 책(빗물침투 저류시설 · 생태유수지 등 23개소 , 농촌둠벙 · 생태습지 등 33개소 설치) 을 실시하고, (f) 오염사고 방지를 위해 왜관 · 성서 산단에 9개소의 완충저류시설을 설치 하는 것인바, 34개의 중점관리유역 선정 · 관리, 비점오염원에 대한 저감대책 도입, 오 염원 배출시설의 방류기준 신설 · 강화를 통하여 BOD에만 한정되어 있던 수질오염 총 량관리나 비점오염원에 의한 수질 악화의 심각성을 고려할 때 낙동강 수질의 개선에 상당히 기여할 것으로 보이는 점, ② 퇴적토 준설은 홍수예방 및 용수확보를 위하여 , 보 설치는 용수확보를 위하여 채택된 것인데, 위 공사 중 수질오염을 최소화시키는 저 감방안으로 오수처리계획, 침사지 설치계획, 오탁방지막 설치, 진공흡입 준설, 가물막 이, 물돌리기 및 Sheet File 등이 대책으로 마련되었고 , 이 사건 환경영향평가 시에 EFDC 모델을 이용하여 보의 설치 및 준설 공사 시의 부유사 확산영향 예측을 실시하 였는데, 모든 조건에서 최악의 상황, 즉 모든 공사가 동시에 진행되는 상황을 가정하여 모델링한 결과 저감시설 설치로 인하여 90% 내외의 부유사 농도가 저감하는 것으로 예측되었으며, 취수장에 미치는 영향도 미미할 것으로 예측되었고, 피고들은 공사시 상 류에서 발생되는 부유토사가 하류 공사지점까지 영향을 미치지 않도록 준설선 간격을 최소 5km 이상 설정하고 공사 순서를 계획하여 진행하였으며, 공사 중에 상시 수질모니 터링을 실시하여 수질악화시 침사지 약품투입, 오탁방지막 추가설치 등 추가 저감대책 을 수립한 점, ③ 현재 낙동강 유역(특히 부산 · 경남권)은 수질이 나쁘고 수질사고에 취약한 하천수를 식수로 사용하고 있어 수질을 개선할 필요성이 있으며, 총인처리시설 의 확충, 비점오염원의 관리 등 수질개선 대책을 포함하고 있는 이 사건 사업의 내용 을 반영하여 실시된 EFDC 수질모델링 결과에서도 낙동강의 수질이 개선되는 것으로 나타나고 있는 점, ④ 한편 보의 설치로 인한 유속저하 및 체류시간 증가로 수질이 악 화된다고 단정할 수 없으며, 공사기간에 공사로 인한 부유물질로 어느 정도 수질의 악 화가 발생한다고 하더라도 그 저감대책을 충실히 마련하였고 피해발생이 어느 정도 예 상된다고 하더라도 이 사건 사업으로 달성하고자 하는 공익을 능가한다고 볼 수도 없 는 점, ⑤ 보는 호소와 달리 물이 흐르는 하천이고, 보의 설치 후 상 · 하류의 수질변화 는 유속저하로 인한 정체시간보다는 상류 유입유량, 강우시 탁류, 수온 등에 영향을 받 으며, 조류의 성장도 물의 체류시간만에 의하여 결정되는 것이 아니라, 빛, 온도, 영양 물질에 의하여 영향을 받는 것이므로, 보의 설치로 체류시간이 증가한다는 사정만으로 곧바로 부영양화 현상이 생길 것이라 단정할 수 없는 점, ⑥ 이 사건 사업으로 수질이 전반적으로 개선되지만, 먹는 물은 수질사고로 공급이 단기간이라도 중단되면 큰 사회 적 문제를 야기하므로, 이 사건 사업과 별개로 국민의 건강과 안전 측면에서 보다 확 실한 대책으로 이전부터 계획되어 있던 취수원 이전대책을 추진하는 것일 뿐 , 취수원 이전대책 논의 자체가 이 사건 수질개선대책의 부적정성을 반증한다는 원고들의 주장은 타당하지 않은 점 등을 종합해보면, 이 사건 사업 중 수질개선의 필요성 및 그 수단의 적정성도 인정되고, 원고들의 그 밖의 주장 역시 이유 없다.

(b)in relation to the prediction of damage caused by the visible installation and measures:

갑제54,55호증, 을 제10호증의1,2의 각기재, 당심 및 제1심 증인 정○ ○, 박○○의 각 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 환경영향평가서에 는 MODFLOW 모형을 이용하여 관리수위 변화에 따른 인근 주거지 및 농경지에 미치 는 영향에 대한 분석결과가 제시되었는바, I권역에서는 함안보의 경우 영향거리가 최대 1.2m이고, 합천보의 경우 1m 이상 지하수위 상승이 예상되는 영향거리가 최대 3.0km 로 분석되어 하천 인근 저지대 농경지에서는 농작물 경작시 지하수위 상승으로 일부 피해가 발생할 것으로 예측되었고, II권역에서는 보가 설치되는 지점 상류 쪽에서는 지 하수위가 상승하고, 하류 쪽에서는 지하수위가 하강될 것으로 예측되어, 표고가 관리수 위보다 낮은 제내지 1.6㎢를 제외하면 농작물 피해, 지반 융기 또는 침하, 지하수위 변 동 및 하천수위 침투 영향은 없는 것으로 나타난 사실, 피고보조참가인이 2010년경 실 시한 함안보 주변지역에 대한 지하수위 상승을 예측하기 위한 지하수모델링 결과, 침 수우려지역(지하수위 농경지표고)은 관리수위 EL. 7.5m의 경우 13.76㎢로 나타나 4대 강 마스터플랜과 별 차이가 없고 , 관리수위 EL. 5.0m의 경우 0.744㎢으로 나타났고 , 2011년경 함안보 및 합천보로 인하여 지하수위가 재배작물의 유효토심8) 위에 형성되 어 영농 및 작물성장이 저해되는 지역(이하 '영농장애지역'이라 한다 )을 추정하기 위하 여 다시 실시한 지하수모델링 결과(1:5,000 수치지형도를 이용하여 조사지형을 모사하 고 , 계성천 · 영산천 50m×25m, 광려천 20m×20m, 남강 · 함안천 · 칠곡천 25m×25m, 합천군 덕곡면 지역 5m×5m의 격자망(하천 · 평야지역)으로 된 2개 층(Layer)을 각 사용하고 , 지역별 지하수 관측정의 지하수위 자료를 이용하여 모델을 보정하였다), 영농장애지역 발 생면적은 함안보에 대해서는 현재 가동 중인 지하수관정을 사용하지 않는 경우 8.57 ㎢ , 관정을 사용하는 경우 8.02㎢, 이에 대한 대책으로 현재 설치 중인 상시배수장 4개 소를 반영할 경우 4.81㎢, 현재 재배작물을 고려한 지역별 유효토심(비닐하우스 설치지 역 1m, 마늘 · 양파 재배지역 0.5m)을 반영할 경우 1.57㎢로 각 예측되었고, 합천보에 대해서는 지표해발고도와 지하수위의 차이가 0.5m 이내인 지역은O㎢이고, 그 차이가 1m 이내인 지역은 0.025㎢로 각 예측되어, 결론적으로 함안보로 인한 영농장애지역은 1.57㎢, 합천보로 인한 영농장애지역은 없는 것으로 예측된 사실, 반면 위 증인 박○○ 은 2010년경 함안보 주변지역에 대한 지하수위 상승을 예측하기 위하여 지하수모델링 을 실시하였는데, 1:25,000 국립지리원 지도를 이용하고, 100m×100m의 격자망으로 된 1개 층을 사용하여 분석한 결과, 관리수위 EL. 5.0m의 경우 침수우려지역은 약 4㎢으로 나타난 사실, 경상남도는 2011년경 함안보 및 합천보로 인한 농경지 등 주변지역에 대 한 영향을 조사하기 위하여 용역을 발주하여, 위 용역에서 1:5,000 국립지리원 지도를 이용하고 10m×10m( 일부 20m×20m)의 격자망을 사용하여 지하수모델링을 수행한 결 과, 함안보에 대해서는 지하수 미사용 조건으로 지표해발고도와 지하수위의 차이가 0.5m 이내인 지역은 6.29㎢, 1.0m 이내의 지역은 12.28㎢, 2.0m 이내인 지역은 22.84 ㎢, 지하수 사용 조건으로 0.5m 이내인 지역은 3.42㎢, 1.0m 이내의 지역은 7.55㎢, 2.0m 이내인 지역은 16.03㎢로 나타났고, 합천보에 대해서는 지하수 미사용 조건으로 0.5m 이내인 지역은 0.22㎢, 1.0m 이내의 지역은 0.44㎢, 2.0m 이내인 지역은 0.82㎢ 이고, 지하수 사용 조건으로 0.5m 이내인 지역은 0.04㎢, 1.0m 이내의 지역은 0.15㎢, 2.0m 이내인 지역은 0.34㎢로 나타난 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

(4) In light of the above-mentioned circumstances, i.e., the point of view that the area of the GM 1 is less than the size of the GM 2 and the point of view that the area of the GM 2 is less than the size of the GM 1 and the point of view that the area of the GM 2 is less than the size of the GM 1 and the point of view that the area of the GM 2 is less than the size of the GM 1 and the point of view that the area of the GM 2 is less than the size of the GM 1 and the point of view that it is difficult to determine the appropriateness of the GM 1 and the point of view that the GM 2 is less than the size of the GM 1 and the point of view that it is difficult to find that the area of the GM 2 is less than the size of the GM 1 and the point of view that it is less than the size of the GM 3 and less than the size of the GM 1 and the point of view of view.

(C) With respect to drillings due to dredging, double erosion forecasts, and countermeasures

As a result of the on-site inspection of the trial, the whole purport of the pleading is as follows: (4) there are considerable parts of re-sed phenomenon in the parallel of the main stream of the Nakdong River and the 6th parallel of the ground; and (3) there were no maximum number of 5-year drillings that are likely to occur in the 9th parallel of the old 7th parallel of the present 5th parallel of the present 5th parallel of the present 5th parallel of the present 9th parallel of the present 5th parallel of the present 5th parallel of the present 9th parallel of the present 5th parallel of the present 9th parallel of the present 9th parallel of the present 9th parallel of the present 9th parallel of the present 9th parallel of the present 9th parallel of the present 5th parallel of the present 9th parallel of the present 5th parallel of the present 9th parallel of the present 5th parallel of the new 5th parallel of the present 4th parallel of the present 5th parallel of the new 5th parallel of the present 9.

4. Necessity of a ruling of assessment;

In a case where an administrative disposition is unlawful, in principle, or in a case where the cancellation or alteration of such an illegal disposition is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare, a judgment may be rendered under Article 28 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which does not allow the revocation of such an illegal administrative disposition exceptionally. In addition, in a case where a judgment is made as to whether such administrative disposition falls under the case where a substantial failure to meet the public welfare, which is the requirement thereof, the necessity for revocation or alteration of the illegal and unjust administrative disposition, and the situation against the public welfare that may arise from such revocation or alteration, etc. should be compared and determined whether such administrative disposition is applied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du9674, Jan. 19, 201; 95Nu4902, 4919, Nov. 11, 1997).

In light of the above legal principles, we examine whether the cancellation of each of the dispositions of this case is significantly inappropriate for the public welfare.

The following circumstances are revealed in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the facts as seen earlier.

First, it is in fact impossible to restore the project of this case, which is a large-scale national government project, to its original state at least 90% of its most process is completed, and it is virtually impossible to restore it to its original state. The installation of the Boreh was almost 100% of its installation, and the dredging was completed most in most areas, and it is anticipated that the restoration to its original state would cause more serious problems not only in terms of national financial efficiency but also in terms of technical and environmental impairment. If the plan for restoration of the original state is established and implemented, the infringement of environmental interests, etc. can be punished in the dynamic situation where controversy over its illegality is raised.

Second, the project of this case is a series of projects where the target of major national rivers in the whole national land is proceeding with the purpose of securing water supply, preventing flood, and securing a water-friendly space. Among them, the cancellation of only the disposal of the remaining construction sections, excluding the disposal of construction sections which cannot dispute the illegality due to the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, results in significant infringement of the efficiency of the budget already invested for the entire project, even in consideration of the maintenance and management expenses disbursed every year for the continuous maintenance of the project of this case.

Third, on the basis of the king's disposition such as that the wide range of land expropriation procedures have already been completed for the execution of the project in this case, new legal relations have already been formed with many interested parties. If the next cancellation is delayed, it is likely that serious confusion may occur in the existing legal relations.

Fourth, although each disposition of this case is judged to be in violation of the relevant laws related to the procedure for the establishment thereof, legitimacy of the purpose of the project itself cannot be denied, and the financial efficiency invested in the project of this case cannot be disregarded even if the effects of the financial project (such as flood prevention, water resources development, balanced regional development, quantity of sports, development of riverside areas, restoration of aquatic ecosystems and utilization of leisure space) cannot be disregarded. Thus, if the project at the completion stage is more clearly maintained and managed the outcomes of the river lives project already established and used even at this point than returning the project to the datum, it can be expected that a thorough compensation can be prepared for some farmers who are expected to have direct damage due to the implementation of the project of this case.

Fifth, in order to prevent the situation against the public welfare such as the above confusion, the effect of the legal relationship formed on the basis of the cancellation of each disposition of this case is maintained rather than completely denying the validity of the legal relationship formed on the basis thereof. However, it is determined that the specification of the illegality of the disposition in this decision is an appropriate method to simultaneously meet the necessity of judicial control over the administrative action that does not comply with the procedure prescribed by law at the same time.

In light of the above various circumstances, there is sufficient reason to render a judgment on assessment in accordance with Article 28 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' actions against the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs concerning the government's basic plan of this case, lawsuits against each disposition listed in the list of standing to sue in attached Form 4, and lawsuits against cancellation of each disposition stated in the list of standing to sue in attached Form 3, excluding the original parts stated in the list of standing to sue in attached Form 4, among the plaintiffs, are dismissed in all. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants stated in the list of standing to sue in attached Form 3, among the plaintiffs, are deemed to be unnecessary to render a judgment, and there is no reason to hold a judgment, and all of them are dismissed. However, pursuant to Article 28 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, among dispositions entered in the list of standing to sue in attached Form 3, "Ch or B" and "Ch or B" recorded in the list of standing to sue in attached Form 3 and made by the head of the Regional Construction and Management Administration of Busan Metropolitan Government, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified.

Fence

Park Ho-ho

The volume of oxygens, the normal value of which is low, shall be evaluated as having good water quality.

2) Total quantity of Thosphorus (total weight), inorganics and organics. It is assessed that there is a low trade value and that water quality is good.

(iii) managed by discharging water pollutants into unspecified routes in such unspecified places as cities, roads, farmland, mountainous districts, construction sites, etc.

It is difficult to do so.

4) The EFDC model consists of three elements, namely, dynamics, sediment, and water quality. The EFD model consists of three elements, including water temperature, etc.

Part o12 Basic TT, TC, Water Quality Model Sheet, 0.0 Mepap Kak Hak Hak

The third day water quality model is based on CE- QUAL-ICM.

5) It is a kind of process analysis method and multi-level analysis method for Analytic Halytic Hysichy. An economic analysis, policy analysis, and region in the preliminary feasibility study

enforcement of section 22(2)

It is judged to be.

6) The term “river flow” means maintaining the normal function and condition of a river in consideration of the use of river water, such as livelihood, industry, environmental improvement, power generation, transport, etc.

It means the minimum amount of flow necessary for flaging, and the measurement unit is "fow concept" as a mar/weon.

(vii)The rate of full-time repair means an extension of a completed bank (the bank whose structural stability is secured with a planned flood discharge), which is necessary to install a bank.

The value of the section is divided by the extension of the section, and the incomplete repair rate is the bank, but it falls short of the completed bank and thus it is necessary to reinforce the part.

The term "value" means the value divided by the number of times required.

8) Effective soil depth of the earth and sand, sand or gravel floor, reflector layers, etc. on the surface of the soil, with the conditions required for growing plants.

up to the upper floor of the Myeon.

19) The term “Dry CES” refers to the modeling result that is assumed to be an area without groundwater on the first floor sporesponding part, and Dry CES is a non-vitalized CES.

값 L에회네에 연쇄적인영향 기(즉니 ,물의흐름에장애가 म되는

Specific lists are omitted for the protection of personal information.

Attached 2 List of Dispositions subject to Rejection

Defendant Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration;

(a) made on November 12, 2009:

1) Tools 18 (Seak 2 Haak 1 Area) project of the Nakdong River;

(ii) 20 tools (public, private, and private areas) projects of the Nakdong River;

(iii) 22 tools (salin and height zones) projects of the Nakdong River;

4) 23 tools (salng 3 et al.) projects of the Nakdongdong River;

5) A project consisting of 24 tools (Sapju and lives) project of the Nakdong River;

©낙동강 살리기 사업 30공구(구미지구) 사업의,

7) Section 32 of the Nakdong River Slaughter project (Gumi, Simiju, Dong) project;

8) A project consisting of 3 project sections (or project sections 1 to 8) of the Nakdong River (or project sections 33 project);

(c) with respect to February 5, 2010:

1) 21 Section 21 of the Nakdongdong River (Tgu 1 & 1 District),

2) 29 Section 29 project of the Nakdongdong River (Gumi-gu District 5);

(iii) 34 tools (e.g. 1 & 3 sections) project of the Nakdongdong River;

(iv) 36 work tools (e.g., 3 & 3 districts) project of the Nakdong River (e.g., heading 9 to 12 of Table 1);

Each river work implementation plan (revision) shall be published and taken.

Attached 3 List of Standing Parties to each Disposition

A person shall be appointed.

Attached 4. List of Standing Parties (464)

Specific lists are omitted for the protection of personal information.

Attached Table 5 List of Areas Subject to Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 3. An area subject to environmental impact assessment by the item of the first project.

A person shall be appointed.

Table 4. A land subject to environmental impact assessment by the item of the second project.

A person shall be appointed.

Attached 6-Related Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

【Environmental Impact Assessment Act

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Act is to promote a pleasant and safe life of people by examining in advance the impact of a project on the environment when formulating and implementing a project plan for a project subject to environmental impact assessment.

Article 4 (Projects Subject to Environmental Impact Assessment)

(1) Projects that shall be conducted for environmental impact assessment (hereinafter referred to as "projects subject to environmental impact assessment") shall be as follows:

(3) Detailed scope of a project subject to environmental impact assessment shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 13 (Preparation of Environmental Impact Assessment Reports)

(1) When a project implementer intends to implement a project subject to environmental impact assessment, he/she shall prepare a document on environmental impact assessment (hereinafter referred to as "assessment statement").

Article 14 (Gathering of Opinions and Preparation of Draft Assessment Statement)

(1) When a project implementer intends to prepare an assessment statement, he/she shall hear the opinions of local residents (hereinafter referred to as "resident") who are affected by the implementation of a project subject to environmental impact assessment by holding an explanatory meeting, public hearing, etc. and include them in the contents of the assessment statement, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. In such cases, a public hearing shall be held if there is a request from residents within

Article 16 (Request for Consultation, etc. on Assessment Statement)

(1) A project executor subject to approval, etc. shall submit an assessment statement to the head of approving agency before obtaining approval, etc. for a project plan.

(2) The head of the approving agency or a project executor exempt from obtaining approval, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "head of the approving agency") shall submit an assessment report to the Minister of Environment, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and request the Minister of Environment to hold consultation on the assessment report. In such cases, the head of the approving agency may attach his/her

Article 19 (Confirmation and Notification as to Whether Contents of Consultation are Included)

(1) When the head of approving agency intends to approve the project plans, etc., he shall confirm whether the contents of consultation have been reflected in the project plans, etc. In this case, if the contents of consultation are not reflected in the project plans, etc., he shall have them reflected in them.

【Enforcement Decree of Environmental Impact Assessment

Article 3 (Projects and Scope of Environmental Impact Assessment)

(2) Detailed scope of a project subject to environmental impact assessment under Article 4 (3) of the Act shall be as specified in attached Table 1.

[Attachment 1] The scope of projects subject to environmental impact assessment, the timing for the submission of an assessment report, and the timing for request for consultation (Article 3)

2 and Article 23(1)

Corporation

(1) The former River Act (amended by Act No. 9758 of Jun. 9, 2009)

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Act is to manage rivers appropriately and contribute to the promotion of public welfare by prescribing matters concerning the designation, management, use, conservation, etc. of rivers in order to promote benefits from the use of rivers, to environmentally-friendly maintenance and conservation of rivers, and to prevent any damage caused by running river water.

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

2. The term "river area" means any area of land determined pursuant to Article 10 (1);

5. The term "river works" means works to newly build, improve, or repair rivers in order to improve the functions of rivers;

means.

Article 32 (Authorization, Permission, etc. Deemed Granted under other Acts)

(1) Where a river management agency establishes and announces a river works execution plan pursuant to Article 27, if a person other than the river management agency obtains authorization of a river works execution plan pursuant to Article 30 (5), or the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs establishes and announces a plan for the establishment of a floodgate survey pursuant to Article 31, matters on which the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs or the river management agency has consulted with the head of the relevant administrative agency pursuant to paragraph (3) concerning the following permission, authorization, license, approval, decision, cancellation, deliberation, report, consultation, disposition, etc. (hereafter referred to as "authorization, permission, etc." in this Article) shall be deemed to have been granted, and when the public announcement of a river works execution plan, the authorization of a river works execution plan by a person other than the river management agency,

5. Determination of an urban management plan under Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (referring to the period under subparagraph 6 of Article 2 of the same Act);

Only half facilities), permission for development activities under Article 56 of the same Act, and urban planning facility manufacturers under Article 86 of the same Act.

Designation of an implementer of a project and authorization of an implementation plan under Article 88 of the same Act;

Article 33 (Permission, etc. to Occupy Rivers)

(1) Any person who intends to engage in any of the following acts within a river area shall obtain permission from a river management agency, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. The same shall also apply where he/she intends to change important matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, among matters permitted:

1. Occupancy of land;

2. Occupancy of river facilities;

3. New construction, reconstruction and alteration of a structure;

4. Excavation, banking and cutting of the land, and other changes in the form and quality of land;

5. Gathering soil, rocks, sand, and gravel;

6. Other acts prescribed by Presidential Decree, which may hinder the preservation and management of rivers.

(2) Additional clauses may be attached to permission under paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as "permission for occupancy and use of a river") necessary for the prevention of pollution caused by contamination of a river and any harm to public health and sanitation.

(3) Where a river management agency intends to grant permission to occupy and use rivers, it shall consider the following matters:

1. Whether the standards for the structure and facilities of rivers under Article 13 are met;

2. Whether it is appropriate to the basic river plan;

3. Whether drainage facilities have been installed so that the flooding does not occur in the neighboring areas due to the establishment of structures;

4. Impact on river facilities, such as hydrological investigation facilities, due to the use of river water and installation of structures.

(1) The former Korea Water Resources Corporation Act (amended by Act No. 9758, Jun. 9, 2009)

Article 18 (Legal Fiction of Permission, Authorization, etc. under Other Acts)

(1) Where the Corporation has obtained approval of an implementation plan under Article 10 for a project implemented by the Corporation, the following permission, authorization, etc. shall be deemed granted for the matters on which the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs has consulted with the heads of relevant administrative agencies pursuant to paragraph (2), and where the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs or the Minister of Environment has publicly announced the approval of an implementation plan, authorization, etc. shall be deemed publicly announced or announced under the following Acts:

1. Permission for development activities under Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and cities under Article 86 of the same Act;

Designation of a project implementer for planning facilities, and authorization of an implementation plan under Article 88 of the same Act;

(1) The former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 9758 of June 9, 2009)

Article 56 (Permission for Development Acts)

(1) A person who intends to engage in any of the following activities prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as "development activities") shall obtain permission from the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head of a Si/Gun (hereinafter referred to as "permission for development activities"). The foregoing shall not apply to acts conducted on a large scale or by an urban planning project:

1. Construction of buildings, or installation of structures;

2. Changing the form and quality of land (excluding changing the form and quality of land for farming).

3. Gathering soil and rocks;

4. Partition of land (excluding a site on which any building under Article 57 of the Building Act is located);

5. Piling up goods within the green area, control area or natural environment conservation area for at least one month.

Article 58 (Standard for Permission for Development Acts)

(1) The Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, or the head of a Si/Gun shall grant permission for development activities only where the details of an application for permission for development activities meet the following standards:

Omission of each title

(2) When the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head of a Si/Gun intends to permit development activities, he/she shall hear the opinions of an implementer of an urban planning project implemented in the relevant area as to whether such development

(3) Detailed matters necessary for standards, etc. for permission for development activities shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 56 (Standards for Permission for Development Acts) of the Enforcement Decree of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21835, Nov. 20, 2009)

(1) Standards for permission for development activities under Article 58 (3) of the Act shall be as specified in attached Table 1-2.

[Attachment 1] Criteria for Permission for Development Activities (Related to Article 56)

1. Matters to be examined by field;

SectorGrain

2. Whether the river is in violation;

(1) The former River Act (amended by Act No. 9758 of Jun. 9, 2009)

Article 23 (Formulation of Long-Term Comprehensive Water Resource Plans)

(1) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall establish a twenty-year long-term comprehensive plan for the stable securing of water resources and the efficient use, development and preservation of rivers (hereinafter referred to as "long-term comprehensive water resources plan"), as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(2) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall review the feasibility of the long-term comprehensive water resources plan every five years from the date on which such plan is formulated.

(3) Matters to be included in the long-term comprehensive water resources plan shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(4) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall, when he/she intends to formulate or amend a long-term comprehensive water resource plan, undergo deliberation by the Central River Management Committee after the cooperative with the heads of relevant central administrative agencies, and notify the heads of relevant

Article 24 (Formulation of Comprehensive Water Control Plans for River Basin)

(1) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall establish a comprehensive water control plan for the river basin (hereinafter referred to as "comprehensive water control plan for the river basin") with the content necessary for the development and utilization of water resources of river basins, the proper use thereof, the improvement of river environment, the flood prevention in river basins, the mitigation of flood damage, etc., as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(2) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall examine the feasibility of the comprehensive water control plan for river basins every five years from the date on which such plan is established.

(3) Matters to be included in the comprehensive water control plan for a river basin, the water system (referring to the whole of rivers belonging to the same river basin on the basis of the ending points of the river concerned; hereinafter the same shall apply), the designation of flood assigned for each major point, and other necessary matters concerning the comprehensive water control plan for a river basin shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(4) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall, when he/she intends to formulate or amend a comprehensive water control plan for river basins, consult with the heads of related administrative agencies, such as institutions related to disaster prevention affairs, and then undergo consultation with local river management committees (referring to the relevant river management committee, respectively, if the river basin extends over at least two Cities/Dos

(5) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs may organize and operate a basin management council, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, to reflect the opinions of local residents, etc. before formulating or amending a basin comprehensive water control plan pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2).

(7) The comprehensive water control plan for the river basin shall be established within the scope of the long-term comprehensive water resources plan and shall form the basis for the river basic system for the catch referred to in Article 25.

Article 25 (Basic River Plans)

(1) A river management agency shall establish a basic river plan on a ten-year basis with respect to any river under its management, including the basic matters necessary for the use of rivers and the natural-friendly management thereof, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(3) A river management agency shall review the feasibility of the basic river plan every five years from the date of its establishment. If necessary, it shall revise the plan.

(4) Matters to be included in a basic river plan shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(5) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs or a river management agency shall, when formulating or amending a basic river plan, undergo deliberation by the River Management Committee after prior consultation with the heads of relevant administrative agencies: Provided, That the same shall not apply to any modification

(6) Article 9 shall apply mutatis mutandis where the Mayor/Do Governor formulates a basic river plan for local rivers that extend over two or more Cities/Dos.

(7) Article 7 (6) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the establishment and amendment of a basic river plan.

Article 27 (River Works, Maintenance and Repair by River Management Agencies)

(1) A river management agency (including the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs where the Minister executes river works on behalf of the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs pursuant to Article 28 (1); hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) shall, when it intends to implement such river works, establish a plan for the implementation of river works (hereinafter referred to as "river works implementation plan"), as prescribed by Presidential Decree: Provided, That the same

(2) A river works implementation plan shall be formulated within the scope of the basic river plan.

(3) A river management agency shall, when it formulates or modifies a river works execution plan, present such plan for inspection, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(4) Where the river management agency which manages national rivers executes river works on the section connected with local rivers in the course of performing river works on national rivers, notwithstanding Article 30, such river works shall not be deemed river works by a person other than the river management agency.

(5) Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, river works and the maintenance and repair of rivers shall be executed by the river management agency: Provided, That the maintenance and repair of national rivers shall be executed by the Mayor/Do Governor.

(6) A river management agency may, in any of the following cases, execute river works and maintain and repair rivers, as prescribed by Presidential Decree:

1. Construction, maintenance, and repair of other structures which combine the usefulness of river facilities;

2. Where it executes other works which become necessary due to river works or other works which become necessary to execute river works together with river works.

(7) A river management agency shall, when completing works referred to in paragraphs (5) and (6), publish details thereof, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(8) River facilities, the completion of which is publicly notified pursuant to paragraph (7), shall be restored and repaired pursuant to paragraph (5) from the following day after the public announcement thereof.

(9) Article 9 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the proviso to paragraph (5).

Article 30 (River Works by Persons, other than River Management Agencies)

(1) A person, other than a river management agency, may execute river works or the maintenance and repair of rivers with permission from the river management agency, as prescribed by Presidential Decree except as provided for in Articles 6, 9, and 28: Provided, That minor matters prescribed by Presidential Decree shall not be subject to permission.

(2) A river management agency shall, when it intends to grant permission under paragraph (1), examine whether such permitted matters conform to the basic river plan. In such cases, the river management agency shall consult in advance with the head of the relevant administrative agency.

(3) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall, when granting permission under paragraph (1), notify the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the area thereof without delay

(4) A river management agency may, when deemed particularly necessary in granting permission referred to in paragraph (1), have all or part of required construction costs deposited, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(5) Anyone who has obtained a permit under paragraph (1) shall prepare an implementation plan for river basin as prescribed by Presidential Decree and obtain the authorization thereof from the competent river basin. The same shall apply to any modification to the matters prescribed by Presidential Decree from among the authorized matters.

(7) A person other than a river management agency shall, upon completing river works, submit a report on completion of works to the river management agency and obtain authorization for completion without delay. In this case, the river management agency in receipt of an application for authorization for completion may request the head of the relevant central administrative agency, local government or government-invested

(8) A river management agency in receipt of an application for authorization for completion referred to in paragraph (7) shall grant authorization for completion if it is deemed that the relevant work is carried out as specified in the implementation plan for the river works authorized pursuant to

(9) River facilities, the completion of which has been authorized pursuant to paragraph (8), shall be maintained and repaired pursuant to Article 27 (5) from the day following the completion authorization.

(1) Where matters subject to permission under paragraph (1) overlap or are related to matters subject to permission under Article 33 (1) or 50 (1), the competent permitting authority and necessary matters for other procedures for permission shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

3. Whether he violates the Construction Technology Management Act;

/Gu Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Act No. 9848 of Dec. 29, 2009)

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. the term “construction work” means construction work as prescribed in subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry;

Article 21-3 (Execution Process of Construction Works)

(1) In order to implement construction works economically and efficiently, the contracting authority shall ensure that construction works are planned, designed, executed, supervised, maintained, managed, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "execution process of construction works") in an organic manner.

(2) Where the execution process of a construction work is not mutually organic, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may request the ordering authority which has ordered the construction work concerned to correct it.

(3) Necessary matters concerning the contents and method of the execution process of construction works shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

/Gu Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 9875 of Dec. 29, 2009)

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

4. The term “construction works” means works (including site preparation works for installing facilities) to install, maintain and repair facilities, such as civil engineering works, building works, industrial equipment works, landscaping works, environmental installation works, etc., installation of machinery and equipment and other structures, and physical works, etc.: Provided, That the works falling under any of the following items shall not be included:

(a) Electric works under the Electrical Construction Business Act;

(b) Information and communications construction projects under the Information and Communications Construction Business Act;

(c) Fire-fighting system installation business under the Fire-Fighting System Installation Business Act;

(d) Cultural heritage repair works under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act;

【former Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21852, Nov. 26, 2009)

Article 38-4 (Execution Process of Construction Works)

Except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts and subordinate statutes, the contracting authority shall execute construction works in accordance with the process of performing construction works under Articles 38-5 through 38-19: Provided, That with respect to any of the following construction works, the execution process of construction works may be partially adjusted:

1. Construction works with a total construction cost of less than ten billion won;

2. Emergency construction works, such as disaster restoration;

3. Construction works for repair, removal, or improvement;

4. Construction works for national defense and military installations which require security;

5. Construction works determined by the contracting authority through consultation with the heads of related central administrative agencies, which are deemed necessary due to the characteristics of the relevant construction works and implementation processes;

Article 38-5 (Basic Plans)

(1) Where the contracting authority intends to execute a construction project, it shall prepare a basic outline of the contents of the project (hereinafter referred to as "basic outline") after examining the following matters:

1. Necessity of the project;

2. Connection with plans formulated under other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as urban management planning;

3. Prediction of risk factors resulting from the implementation of the Corporation.

4. Location conditions of the planned construction site.

5. Scale of construction and construction cost; and

6. Environmental impact of the construction work on the environment.

7. Other matters deemed necessary by the contracting authority for expected effects.

Article 38-6 (Research on Feasibility)

(1) A contracting authority shall conduct a feasibility study on construction works that it intends to implement: Provided, That this shall not apply where the contracting authority deems it unnecessary to conduct a feasibility study on construction works, the total construction cost of which is anticipated to be less than 50 billion won due to the characteristics of

(2) In conducting a feasibility study under the provisions of paragraph (1), the contracting authority shall investigate and examine all processes of the building, facilities, etc. constructed by the relevant construction works from the installation stage to the removal stage in consideration of necessary factors, such as technology, environment, society, finance, site, transportation, etc., and shall present the estimated construction cost of the relevant construction works and the limit of increase in the construction cost that can maintain the feasibility of the relevant construction works.

Article 38-7 (Master Plans for Construction Works)

(1) The contracting authority shall, as a result of the feasibility study conducted under Article 38-6, establish a basic plan including the matters falling under each of the following subparagraphs on the basis of a basic plan for construction works for which it is deemed necessary:

1. Objectives and basic direction of the project;

2. Details, period of construction, implementer, and construction execution plan;

3. Construction cost and financing plan;

4. Investment priority by individual project (limited to where planning and compilation of budget are performed as a single project by combining construction works of the same or similar type of work, such as road works, river works, local development projects, etc.);

5. Annual construction implementation plans;

6. A plan for maintaining and managing facilities;

7. Environmental conservation plan;

8. Other matters deemed necessary by the contracting authority for expected effects.

(2) The contracting authority shall, when it formulates a basic plan, take into account the connectivity with plans formulated under other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as urban management planning, etc. and analyze the impacts of the relevant construction works on the environment, etc

(3) The contracting authority shall consult in advance with the head of a related administrative agency in formulating a basic plan. The same shall apply to any modification to the following matters:

omission by each subparagraph

(4) In determining the investment priority by individual work under paragraph (1) 4, the contracting authority shall comprehensively consider the social and economic reasonableness, the balance between regions in development, the opinions of residents of the relevant region, etc.

(5) The contracting authority shall, when it formulates a basic plan or changes any subparagraph of paragraph (3), publicly notify such fact.

Article 38-9 (Basic Design)

(1) A contracting authority shall draw up a basic design (hereinafter referred to as "basic design") which includes the type of major structures, the ground and soil quality, the outlined construction cost, the shop design policy, etc. in the relevant construction works by reflecting a basic plan: Provided, That the basic design may not be separately set up in any of the following cases:

omission by each subparagraph

(2) The details, design period, management of basic designs and standards for preparing design documents shall be determined by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

(3) In preparing a basic design, the contracting authority shall hear the opinions of interested parties, such as residents: Provided, That this shall not apply where such opinions are heard pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes before preparing the basic design.

Article 38-11 (Working Design)

(1) The contracting authority shall perform the shop design on the basis of the basic design, and shall conduct a joint investigation with interested parties, etc. of the relevant structure at the time of the shop design: Provided, That this shall not apply where the contracting authority deems that a joint investigation is unnecessary in consideration of the major types of construction, etc. in the shop design.

(5) In the case of construction works decided on a package deal basis pursuant to Article 80 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party and Article 96 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to which a Local Government is a Party, the contracting authority may concurrently perform the relevant construction work and the relevant construction work by kind and section of the construction work (survey and ground investigation). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18890, Jun. 30, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 19173, Dec

(1) A contracting authority shall conduct a survey and a ground investigation in executing the basic design or working design.

Article 38-13 (Examination of Economic Feasibility, etc. of Design)

(1) In conducting the basic design and execution design for construction works with a total construction cost of at least ten billion won, the contracting authority shall directly review the economic feasibility of alternative designs and the feasibility of applying on-site designs (hereinafter referred to as "economic feasibility, etc. of designs") for each main function of the facilities subject to design by major function of the facilities subject to design, or shall have experts, such as the design supervisor, etc. under Article 22 of the Act examine such feasibility: Provided, That even for construction works with a total construction cost of less than ten billion won, the contracting authority may review economic feasibility, etc. of the design

(1) The former River Act (amended by Act No. 9758 of Jun. 9, 2009)

Article 16 (Execution of River Basin Surveys)

(1) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall conduct surveys on the use and management of water resources (hereinafter referred to as "river basin survey"), such as tide surveys, water control for water utilization and river environment, necessary for the management of rivers, the establishment of national development plans, etc.

Article 17 (Execution of Hydrological Investigations)

(1) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall observe, measure and survey (hereinafter referred to as "Hydrological survey") the water level, flow quantity, similar quantity of river basins, river basin river basin river quantity, river flow and increased emulation, and the quantity of water in the soil of river basins in a scientific manner in order to understand the water circulation structure of river basins, install river facilities, design various structures, and use and manage the surrounding areas of rivers.

Article 21 (Conducting Surveys on State of Flood Damage, etc.)

(1) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall conduct an investigation into the state of flood damage (hereinafter referred to as the "investigation into State of flood damage") of river areas and surrounding areas due to river inundation in order to maintain rivers, forecast floods, flood evacuation, provide basic data on disaster-related insurance, and establish measures for preventing flood damage, and prepare flood hazard maps for forecasting the risk of flood damage;

(1) The former Korea Water Resources Corporation Act (amended by Act No. 9758, Jun. 9, 2009)

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the improvement of people's lives and the promotion of public welfare by facilitating the supply of water for living and improving water quality through the establishment of the Korea Water Resources Corporation to comprehensively develop and manage water resources.

Article 2 (Legal Personality)

The Korea Water Resources Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") shall be a corporation.

Article 9 (Projects)

(1) The Corporation shall conduct the following projects:

1. Construction and development of the following facilities for the comprehensive use and development of water resources (hereinafter referred to as "water resources development facilities"):

Operation and Management;

(a) Multi-purpose dams and dams for the supply of water for living (including water-power generation facilities): Provided, That only agricultural water shall be supplied;

any dam shall be excluded.

(c) Earct banks and multi-purpose waterways;

(c) Facilities for inland transportation stations and canals;

(d) Other facilities for the comprehensive development and utilization of water resources;

Article 10 (Approval of Project Implementation Plans)

(1) Where the Corporation intends to implement the following projects, it shall establish an implementation plan of a project (hereinafter referred to as "implementation plan"), as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and shall obtain approval from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs in cases falling under subparagraph 1, and approval from the Minister

1. Construction or development projects under Article 9 (1) 1, 2, 5 and 5-2 and the same kind related thereto;

Projects referred to in subparagraphs 7, 8 and 11 of this paragraph;

(2) When the Corporation formulates an implementation plan for the construction of a sewage terminal treatment facility pursuant to paragraph (1), it shall comply with the framework plan for sewerage maintenance under Article 6 of the Sewerage Act;

(3) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs or the Minister of Environment shall consult in advance with the heads of relevant central administrative agencies and local governments when approving implementation plans

(4) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs or the Minister of Environment shall, when he/she approves an implementation plan under paragraph (1), publicly announce it in the Official Gazette.

(6) Paragraphs (1) through (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis to approval for amending an implementation plan under paragraph (5).

Article 18 (Authorization, etc. Deemed Granted under Other Acts)

(1) Where the Corporation has obtained approval of an implementation plan under Article 10 for a project implemented by the Corporation, the following permission, authorization, etc. shall be deemed to have been granted with respect to the matters on which the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs has consulted with the heads of relevant administrative agencies pursuant to paragraph (2), and where the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs or the Minister of Environment has publicly announced approval of an implementation plan, the authorization, permission, etc. under the following Acts shall be deemed to have been publicly announced or announced:

18. Permit for carrying out river works, authorization of a river works execution plan under Article 30 of the River Act, and authorization of a river works execution plan.

Permission to occupy and use a river under Article 50 of the same Act and permission to use river water under Article 50 of the

(2) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs or the Minister of Environment shall consult in advance with the head of the relevant administrative agency when he/she intends to approve an implementation plan containing the matters

Article 26 (Application Mutatis Mutandis of the River Act)

(1) Notwithstanding Articles 8 and 27 (5) of the River Act, the Corporation may manage rivers or perform river works to the extent that an implementation plan is approved pursuant to Article 10.

(2) Where the Corporation manages a river or executes river works pursuant to paragraph (1), it shall exercise the authority of the river management agency pursuant to Articles 27 (6) and 75 of the River Act.

(1) The former River Act (amended by Act No. 9758 of Jun. 9, 2009)

Article 8 (River Management Agencies)

(1) National rivers shall be managed by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs

Article 27 (River Works, Maintenance and Repair by River Management Agencies)

(5) Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, river works and the maintenance and repair of rivers shall be executed by the river management agency: Provided, That the maintenance and repair of national rivers shall be executed by the Mayor/Do Governor.

Article 28 (Execution of River Works by Proxy)

(2) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs may, if deemed necessary, have a Mayor/Do Governor or a government-invested institution prescribed by Presidential Decree execute river works on his/her behalf. In such cases, when he/she has a government-invested institution prescribed by Presidential Decree execute river works on his/her behalf, he/she shall consult with

(3) Matters necessary for the scope of vicarious execution of construction works under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 30 (River Works by Persons, other than River Management Agencies)

(1) A person, other than a river management agency, may execute river works or maintain and repair rivers with permission from the river management agency, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, except as provided for in Articles 6, 9, and 28.

(5) Anyone who has obtained a permit under paragraph (1) shall prepare an implementation plan for river basin as prescribed by Presidential Decree and obtain the authorization thereof from the competent river basin. The same shall apply to any modification to the matters prescribed by Presidential Decree from among the authorized matters.

(1) Enforcement Decree of the former River Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21641 of July 27, 2009)

Article 28 (Execution of River Works by Proxy)

(3) "Government-invested institutions prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the former and latter parts of Article 28 (2) of the Act means the Korea Water Resources Corporation under the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, respectively.

(4) River works that the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs may be entrusted to the Korea Water Resources Corporation under paragraph (3) by proxy pursuant to Article 28 (2) of the Act shall be as follows:

1. Disaster restoration works;

2. River works implemented in connection with river facilities established and managed by a Mayor/Do Governor or a public institution under the Act on the Management of Public Institutions;

3. River works related to the operation and management of dams, etc. under Article 39 (1) of the Act;

5. Whether the Cultural Heritage Protection Act is violated;

/Gu Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 9401 of January 30, 2009)

Article 91 (Survey of Surface of Cultural Heritage)

(1) An implementer of construction works prescribed by Presidential Decree shall conduct a surface inspection of cultural heritage (hereinafter referred to as "ground surface inspection") to verify whether relics are buried and distributed in the relevant construction area when he/she formulates a project plan. (2) The surface inspection under paragraph (1) shall be conducted by a cultural heritage-related specialized institution determined and publicly notified by the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration at the request of the implementer of the relevant construction works in compliance with the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and the implementer of the construction works shall submit the surface inspection report to the Mayor/Do Governor and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the relevant project area through the head of the relevant

(9) The objects and scope of construction works subject to the surface inspection of cultural heritage under paragraph (1) and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

effect of the former Enforcement Rule of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism No. 120 on April 21, 2009)

Article 80 (Standards, etc. for Institutions Specializing in Cultural Heritage)

(1) An institution specialized in cultural heritage under Article 91 (2) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as "cultural heritage index inspection institution") shall be classified into the ground surface inspection pipes, and underwater surface inspection institutions, and the standards that the relevant institution shall comply with shall be as specified in attached Table 15.

Article 81-2 (Timing to Conduct Ground Surface Surveys for Cultural Heritage)

The timing when the implementer of a construction project shall conduct the surface inspection of cultural heritage pursuant to Article 91 (1) of the Act shall be as specified in attached Table 15-2.

[Attachment 15-2] The time when the implementer of a construction project is required to conduct an index survey for cultural heritage (related to Article 81-2)

A person shall be appointed.

m. Regulations on the method, procedure, etc. of the surface inspection of the previous cultural heritage (before being amended by the Notice No. 2009-73 of August 28, 2009)

Article 3 (Classification of Ground Surface Surveys)

A ground surface survey shall be classified into a ground surface survey and a underwater surface survey according to the following standards in accordance with the areas subject to the survey, the method of survey, etc.:

1. Land surface survey: A survey to confirm whether or not relics or relics exposed to land surface are distributed;

2. Water surface survey: underwater bottom (in the case of the underwater surface, its lower part and sea, the coastline) of the sea, dams, lakes, rivers, etc.

Survey to search and confirm the surface of the water in the sea as extended from the water and its subordinates, and the state of the relics or remains;

Article 7 (Procedures and Methods for Ground Surface Surveys)

(1) Detailed matters concerning the procedures, methods, etc. of ground surface surveys shall be as prescribed in attached Table 2.

(2) A natural scientific survey concerning geological features, identical excavation, etc. in the ground surface survey shall be conducted selectively, only if necessary. (3) The underwater surface survey may be applied selectively or flexibly in accordance with the conditions, characteristics, etc. of the area where the project is to be performed, and the procedures and methods of the survey (such as the operation of exploration equipment) may be substituted by existing survey data and data provided by the project implementer.

Article 8 (Period for Performance of Ground Surface Surveys)

(1) An investigating agency shall determine an appropriate investigation period in consideration of the area subject to investigation, regional conditions, etc., but shall complete the investigation and preparation of a report within 20 days and submit the result thereof to the requesting agency: Provided, That where any special ground exists that should exceed the aforementioned investigation period, such as the size, special circumstances, method, etc. of the area subject to investigation, it may adjust the relevant

(2) The period of ground surface inspection shall include all a series of periods necessary for the documentary investigation, on-site investigation, preparation of reports, etc.

6. Whether the environmental impact assessment is violated;

【Environmental Impact Assessment Act

Article 16 (Request for Consultation, etc. on Assessment Statement)

(1) A project executor who is required to obtain approval, etc. shall submit an assessment statement to the head of approving agency before obtaining approval, etc. for the project plan.

(2) The head of the approving agency or a project executor exempt from obtaining approval, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "head of the approving agency") shall submit an assessment report to the Minister of Environment, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and request the Minister of Environment to hold consultation on the assessment report. In such cases, the head of the approving agency may attach his/her

Article 17 (Review and Supplement of Assessment Statement)

(1) In examining an assessment statement under Article 16 (2), the Minister of Environment may request the head of the approving agency to supplement or adjust the assessment statement, project plan, etc. in any of the following cases:

1. Where the assessment report has not been prepared according to the details to be prepared under Article 13 (2) and the method of preparation;

2. Where it is deemed necessary to adjust or supplement a project plan, etc. because the implementation of the project subject to environmental impact assessment is likely to adversely affect the environment;

Article 21 (Re-preparation, Re-consultation, etc. of Assessment Statement)

(1) If any of the following events occurs after a project implementer has been notified of the details of consultation pursuant to Article 18, he/she shall re-preparation an assessment statement, and a project implementer required to obtain approval, etc. shall propose an assessment statement to the head of the approving agency:

1. Where the project has not been commenced within a period prescribed by Presidential Decree (excluding cases where changes in conditions for main changes are insignificant within the period for which the head of the approving agency has consulted with the Minister of Environment);

2. Where a project plan, etc. is not implemented according to the details of consultation due to the occurrence of causes prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 22 (Review, etc. of Environmental Preservation Measures following Change in Project Plans, etc

(1) Where the details of consultation are changed due to the change of a project plan, etc. and they do not fall under the objects of re-preparation and re-consultation of an assessment report under Article 21, the project implementer shall devise an environmental conservation plan following the change of the project

【Enforcement Decree of Environmental Impact Assessment

Article 23 (Presentation of Assessment Statement and Time for Request for Consultation, etc.)

(1) The time when an assessment statement is submitted under Article 16 (1) of the Act and the time when a request for consultation is made under paragraph (2) of the same Article shall be as specified in attached Table 1. Article 31 (Re-preparation of

(1) "Period prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 21 (1) 1 of the Act means a period of five years from the date on which the details of consultation are notified pursuant to Article 18 (1) of the Act.

(2) "Grounds prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 21 (1) 2 of the Act means any of the following cases:

1. Where the size of the project and facilities reflected in the details of consultation under Article 18 (1) of the Act is increased by at least 30 percent (including where at least 30 percent is increased by several changes; hereinafter the same shall apply);

2. Where the size of the minimum project subject to environmental impact assessment prescribed in attached Table 1 increases: Provided, That this shall not apply where the size of the site of a factory under the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act increases only the size of the site of the factory, and there is no additional damage to the natural environment or emission of pollutants;

3. Where construction is resumed after the suspension of construction works for not less than seven years.

[Attachment 1] The scope of projects subject to environmental impact assessment, the timing for the submission of an assessment statement, and the timing for the request for consultation (Articles 3(2) and 23(1))

A person shall be appointed.

8. Insignificant water quality anticipated to be constructed as beams.

m. Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

13. The term "lake and marsh" means water and land in any of the following full-water-level areas (referring to a planned floodwater discharge in cases of a dam):

(a) The flow of a river or valley by constructing a dam, a reservoir, a bank, etc. (excluding any erosion control facilities provided for in the Erosion Control Work Act);

Place where water is stored;

(c) A place where the flowing water of a river is naturally stored;

(c) A place where water is stored in a sunken area by any volcanic activity;

Article 28 (Regular Surveys and Measurement)

In order to preserve the water quality and aquatic ecosystems of lakes and marshes, the Minister of Environment and Mayors/Do Governors shall periodically survey and measure the current status of the use of lake and marsh water, the current status of the distribution of water pollution sources, the quantity of water pollutants generated, etc., as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(1) The former River Act (amended by Act No. 9758 of Jun. 9, 2009)

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. The term "river" means any water way in which rainwater, etc. fallen on the ground surface flows together, and which is designated as a national river or a local river pursuant to Article 7 (2) and (3) as closely related to public interests, and includes river areas and river facilities;

2. The term "river area" means any area of land determined pursuant to Article 10 (1);

3. The term "river facilities" means the following facilities installed in order to preserve the functions of a river, improve its usefulness, and reduce flood damage: Provided, That with respect to facilities installed by a person other than a river management agency, the river facilities shall be limited to those for which the river management agency has obtained consent from their installers in order to manage such facilities as river facilities:

(a) Facilities for the stabilization of water paths, such as embankments, bank protections, and water control works;

(b) Dams, estuarine banks (including tide embankments established pursuant to the Flood Control Act), flood control areas, underground rivers, flood control areas, and flood control routes;

The drainage pump place (the drainage place that is an agricultural production infrastructure under the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act and the sewage under the Sewerage Act;

Facilities for the control of river water level, such as a floodgate (excluding pumps installed for the purpose of excluding) and a floodgate (Hydrological);

(c) Facilities related to the operation of ships, such as a canal interior wall, water wharf, wharf, wharf, and lock door;

(d) Other facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree;

8. The term “river water” means water flowing in a river or flowing through the earth’s surface, or water stored in a river;

(1) Enforcement Decree of the former River Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21641 of July 27, 2009)

Article 2 (River Facilities)

"Facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree" in subparagraph 3 (d) of Article 2 of the River Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") means beams, waterway tunnels, hydrological investigation facilities, river laboratories, and other facilities installed pursuant to the Act and announced by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs as necessary for the management of rivers.

x. Framework Act on Environmental Policy

Article 10 (Establishment of Environmental Standards)

(1) The Government shall establish the environmental standards in order to protect the health of citizens and to create a pleasant environment, and ensure that their propriety is maintained according to the changes in recommendations for environmental contribution.

(2) Environmental standards under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

【Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy

Article 2 (Environmental Standards)

Environmental standards under Article 10 (2) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") shall be as specified in attached Table 1.

[Attachment 1] Environmental Standards (Related to Article 2)

3. Water quality and aquatic ecosystems;

(a) Rivers;

(2) Living environment standards

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(c)a lake;

(2) Living environment standards

A person shall be appointed.