2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition has a significant impact on the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s property right. As such, the Defendant, prior to rendering the instant disposition, did not comply with the procedures for hearing opinions with respect to the local residents as stipulated in Article 5-2 of the Electric Source Development Promotion Act, by failing to keep the written opinion form at the place of inspection of the instant project implementation plan, despite having notified the Plaintiff of the facts, details, and legal grounds, etc., and giving the opportunity to submit opinions.

3) The intervenor is bound by the selection criteria of this case, which are internal guidelines in selecting the passing point of transmission lines. The developments leading up to the selection of the committee for selection of passing areas according to the selection criteria of this case are unclear, and some villages do not hold resident briefing sessions, etc. In violation of the selection criteria of this case. 4) The city company having jurisdiction over the project of this case violates the procedure for the selection of passing areas as set forth in Article 17(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act. The city company of this case publicly announced the copy of the implementation plan of the project of this case sent by the defendant pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Enforcement Decree