2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the intervention by the Defendant is assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was designated from the Defendant on December 30, 2005 as the executor of the project in the process of promoting the relocation of the ○○○○ Group (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. The intervenor prepared an implementation plan of the project of this case, which includes the following contents, and applied for the approval thereof to the defendant. On April 20, 2007, the defendant approved the implementation plan pursuant to Article 4 of the National Defense and Military Installations Projects Act (hereinafter “National Defense Projects Act”) (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and announced it by the Ministry of National Defense No. 2007-13.

o Project: National defense and military installations project

o Business summary: A military unit relocation project;

o Period: around April 2007 to December 31, 2010

o Project Implementation Agency and its Address

Administration: Intervenor

Address: 1: 1- way for the Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu No. 1

o Land: 7,105,464.2 square meters of land outside of 1,784 1,784, such as the Gandong-gun, Jeonbuk-gun (hereinafter referred to as the "land number omitted").

C. The Plaintiffs are residents residing in the instant project site.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's evidence 1-2, and Eul's evidence 3-12

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs asserts that the instant disposition constitutes invalidation as it has significant and apparent defects.

1) Although the instant project constitutes a project subject to environmental impact assessment under the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc. (amended by Act No. 9037, Mar. 28, 2008; hereinafter “Environmental Impact Assessment Act”), the Defendant approved the implementation plan of the instant project without environmental impact assessment.

2) In the process of rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant did not only take the instant disposition under the condition that a forest room having a significant interest in the instant project implementer was excluded from the project implementer, but also did not undergo the procedures for consultation with the head of a forest room under Article 5(1) of the National Defense Project Act, and the procedures for hearing opinions and collecting opinions and the procedures for pre-announcement of administration under Articles 2(1) and 22(2) and 46(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) First, the Defendant’s instant disposition approving the instant project implementation plan in the absence of environmental impact assessment as to the instant project, which constitutes the project subject to environmental impact assessment, shall be examined as to whether significant and apparent grounds for invalidation exist in the instant disposition.

2) The purport of Articles 1, 3, 6, 17, 19, and 28 of the Act on Assessment of Environment, Etc. is not to protect the environmental public interest related to the project by allowing a project that is required to conduct an environmental impact assessment to be implemented in a way that does not harm the environment, but to protect the individual interests of residents in the area subject to the environmental impact assessment that is anticipated to cause direct and serious environmental damage by the project in question, rather than to protect the individual interests that can live in a pleasant environment without being subject to the environmental impact assessment beyond the permissible limit compared to their previous convictions. However, if a disposition is taken such as approval without going through an environmental impact assessment, the opinion of the residents in the area subject to the environmental impact assessment in advance and based on the result, reflecting the contents of consultation with the Minister of Environment in the project plan can be entirely obstructed. If so, the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system cannot be achieved in order to prevent the environmental destruction and to maintain and create a pleasant environment, and the fundamental and significant interests of residents in the area subject to the environmental impact assessment cannot be determined objectively and objectively by 30.

3) In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances as to this case’s health class, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 25, and Eul evidence Nos. 3, and the fact-finding results and the overall purport of oral arguments on the whole main market of this court, the disposition of this case which the defendant approved the execution plan of the project of this case without conducting environmental impact assessment on the project of this case is contrary to the legislative intent of the Act on Assessment of Impacts including the environment under which the environmental impact assessment system is established, and the disposition of this case is against the legislative intent of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works, such as the environment under which the environmental impact assessment system is established, and it constitutes invalidation due to a significant and obvious defect that infringes the plaintiffs’ direct and individual interests residing in the project site of this case. The defect of the above grounds for invalidation is not that of the nature that can be cured solely on the ground that

(1) Article 3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Defense Project Act provides that the project implementer shall submit an application for approval of the plan for the project of this case with the drawings indicating the project plan. (2) The Enforcement Decree of the Act on Assessment of Environment, Etc. (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20077 of Jun. 1, 2007; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on Assessment of Environment, Etc.”) provides that “The period for submission of an assessment report and the timing for consultation on the project of this case shall be not less than 30,000 square meters among the national defense and military installations projects under the provisions of Article 2 (2) of the Act on Assessment of Environment,” which are not provided for in the Act on Assessment of Environment and Environment, shall not be deemed to be the period for submission of an assessment report and the timing for approval of the plan for the project of this case to the defendant for the project of this case, which shall not be deemed to fall under the period for submission of the plan for the project of this case.”

B) After the Intervenor, who is the executor of the instant project, completed the basic design before filing an application for approval of the implementation plan of the instant project on April 26, 2006, the Intervenor requested the Defendant to deliberate, and the said basic design was conditional by the Deliberation Committee on Special Construction Technology under the Ministry of National Defense on September 1, 2006, which was later adopted by the Intervenor. On October 19, 2006, the Intervenor sent to the Y-gun Office a public letter stating that “The basic design is approved from the Ministry of National Defense, to be carried out as the project plan of this case,” and the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Environment, Etc. [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act separates the approval and confirmation of the basic design, it is deemed that the conditional adoption of the above basic design refers to the conditional approval of the basic design.

C) However, prior to the conditional adoption of the basic design or the instant disposition, the Intervenor submitted an assessment report on the instant project subject to environmental impact assessment to the Defendant and did not entirely conduct environmental impact assessment, such as requesting the Minister of Environment to hold consultation on the assessment report.

D) The Defendant asserted that there is no defect in the instant disposition since the Intervenor’s submission of the report to the Defendant prior to the instant disposition is not an environmental impact assessment under the Environmental Policy Ordinance, but an environmental impact assessment report under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, and the Intervenor already submitted the aforementioned prior to the instant disposition to the Minister of Environment for consultation on the written review. However, it cannot be accepted as a assertion contrary to Article 25(2) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy (amended by Act No. 9037 of Mar. 28, 2008) and Article 7(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19745 of Dec. 4, 2006) that stipulate that the instant project subject to environmental impact assessment is excluded from the subject matter of the prior examination of environmental impact assessment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without having to examine the remaining arguments of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted since all of the claims of this case are reasonable.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judge Lee Dong-gu (Presiding Judge)