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

Main claim: On December 30, 2005, the defendant confirmed on December 30, 2005 that the approval for the implementation of the Jeju High Power Plant Development Project against the non-party 1 corporation is invalid.

Preliminary Claim: On December 30, 2005, the Defendant revoked the approval for the implementation of the Jeju High Power Plant Development Project against the Non-Party 1 Company.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

A. The plaintiffs are those who own or use adjacent land within approximately 350 from the forest land of Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter omitted) in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, where Non-party 1 corporation created wind power generation complexes, and land owned or used by the plaintiffs is used for cultivating land such as divers of cattle, horses, and divers, and divers.

B. Around December 30, 2004, Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. filed an application with the Defendant for approval for the implementation of the project for the development of wind power plant at Jeju ○○○○, a wind power plant with 21M (1.5MW 14m2) on a daily scale of 6,913m2 forest land in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter omitted).

C. Accordingly, around January 19, 2005, the Defendant consulted with the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy and the head of the Nam-gu, and the Jeju-do Building Committee made the first deliberation around April 20, 2005 and the second deliberation on September 22, 2005, and made a conditional decision on the development project.

D. Accordingly, on November 3, 2005, the non-party 1 applied for approval for the implementation of the Jeju High Power Plant Development Project, which reduced the size of the development project and the size of the facilities to the defendant two-lanes. Accordingly, the defendant, after consultation with the head of Namju Gun and the related agency, approved the non-party 1 corporation to implement the Jeju High Power Plant Development Project (hereinafter the development project in this case) on December 30, 2005 as follows (hereinafter the disposition in this case).

- - sound;

Project Name: Jeju ○○ Power Plant Construction Project

Type of business: Electricity generation business;

The location of the place of business: Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter omitted) 2), 6,418 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "place of business in this case")

Facilities size: 14.7M (2.1M x 7) wind power generation facilities

Funds required: 30 billion won

Project implementation period: December 2005 to June 2006

E. Meanwhile, the instant project site is designated as a “management area” under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter, “National Land Planning and Utilization Act”). The instant project site is designated as a “management preservation area” under the Special Act on Jeju Free International City (hereinafter, “Special Act”), and is designated as a “management preservation area” of Grades 3 through 4, an ecosystem conservation zone, and an landscape conservation zone of Grades 3 through 5.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 7 to 18 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and the issues of this case

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In the first place, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful due to the procedural defect and its contents, even if the instant disposition does not constitute a cause for invalidation as a matter of course, because the procedural defect is significant and apparent, or is not a cause for invalidation as a matter of course.

(1) procedural defects

Although the development project of this case constitutes a project subject to prior examination of environmental feasibility or an index survey of cultural properties for the following reasons, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition without conducting an preliminary examination of environmental feasibility and an index survey of cultural properties for the development project of this case, and thus, has a significant and obvious defect in

In other words, since the instant development project falls under the “Preservation Management Area” among the “Preservation Management Area” under Article 36(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and the area of the approved project plan is more than 5,000 square meters, the instant development project is subject to prior examination of environmental feasibility. ② Even if the instant development project site falls under the “Planning Management Area” rather than the “Preservation Management Area” under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, it is subject to prior examination of environmental impact because the actual project area of the instant development project is more than 10,000 square meters, and it is subject to prior examination of environmental impact.

(2) Contents defect

If a wind power plant is installed in the instant project site due to the instant disposition, the Plaintiffs may not only cause enormous impediment to the production of organic concentration industry and racing ma, etc., due to noise, e.g., the noise and e., generated from the wind power plant, but also decrease in the value of the land owned by the Plaintiffs, and the surrounding natural environment is infringed. The instant disposition was conducted without due consideration of all the benefits to be properly considered only for the interest of Nonparty 1 Company. Therefore, it is unlawful as it exceeded or

B. Defendant’s assertion

As follows, the plaintiffs do not have standing to seek nullification or revocation of the disposition of this case since they do not reside within or near the project site. ② The project site of this case is a planned control area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and its area does not exceed 10,000 square meters, and thus the development project of this case is not subject to prior examination of environmental impact under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy. ③ Even if the development project of this case should undergo prior examination of environmental impact, the development project of this case is not subject to prior examination of environmental impact, in light of all circumstances, the plan of this case does not become null and void just because the development project of this case did not undergo prior examination of environmental impact, and ④ the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the disposition of this case is filed after the filing period, and ⑤ even if the revocation of the disposition of this case is revoked, it shall not be revoked

(i)no standing to sue exists;

The plaintiffs can seek the invalidity or cancellation of the disposition of this case because they are a third party who is not the other party to the disposition of this case, it should be recognized that they were legally protected interests due to the disposition of this case. However, the plaintiffs are merely those who own land in the vicinity of the project site of this case or use them for their own profit. Among the plaintiffs, there is no one person who is residing in the project site of this case or in its neighboring areas, and it cannot be deemed that any specific business losses or inconvenience in residential life have occurred to the plaintiffs due to the development project of this case. Thus, there is no legal interest to seek the revocation of the disposition of this case on the ground of the infringement

(2) No project is subject to prior examination of environmental impact.

The site where the instant development project is implemented falls under the “plan management area” among the “management area” under Article 36(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and on the other hand, the area of the project is 6,418 square meters and does not exceed 10,000 square meters. As such, the instant development project is merely the project subject to deliberation by the Jeju-do Building Committee under the Special Act on Jeju Free International City, and it does not fall under the project subject to prior examination of environmental impact or the inspection of cultural property indexes, and thus, the instant disposition is

(3) A ground for revocation, which is not a legitimate invalidation, constitutes a ground for exclusion, and the period of exclusion has expired.

Even if the development project of this case should undergo prior examination of environmental impact, in light of the overall circumstances, the disposition of this case is not null and void only because it did not undergo such examination, but only constitutes a mere reason for revocation. The plaintiffs knew that the previous disposition of this case was rendered on April 13, 2006, which was the date of the lawsuit of this case, from July 21, 2006 to April 13, 2006, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the period of exclusion was expired.

(4) It is necessary to judge the circumstances.

Even if there is a defect corresponding to the grounds for revocation of the disposition in this case, the revocation of the disposition in this case cannot be revoked under Article 28 of the Administrative Litigation Act as it is considerably inappropriate for public welfare.

C. Key issue of the instant case

Therefore, the issues of the instant case are as follows: (a) whether there is standing to sue to file the instant lawsuit against the Plaintiffs; (b) where prior examination of environmental impact is required for the approval of the instant development project; (c) where the instant project site falls under the “Preservation Management Area” or “Planning Management Area” under Article 36(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act; and (d) where there exist such defects in the instant disposition, whether such defects are grounds for invalidation or are merely grounds for revocation; (iv) whether the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of the filing period of the instant lawsuit; and (v) whether the instant disposition should not be revoked pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act even if there are defects falling under the grounds for revocation of the instant disposition

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit (the Plaintiff’s eligibility, and the first issue)

(a) requirements and burden of proof;

(1) Even if a third party who is not the direct counter party to an administrative disposition is not the party, if the interests protected by law are infringed by the administrative disposition, it shall be entitled to obtain the decision of the propriety thereof by filing an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation or nullity of the administrative disposition. The legal interests referred to in this context refer to cases where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and relevant laws and regulations, and in cases where there are general, indirect, and abstract interests common to the general public as a result of the protection of public interests,

Therefore, a third party, who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation on the ground that his/her environmental interest is infringed or is likely to be infringed upon by the administrative disposition, has the standing to sue to prove that his/her environmental interest is individual, direct, and specific protected interests under the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations, i.e., legally protected interests. However, in cases where the scope of the right of influence that is anticipated to be infringed on the environment due to the project, such as the act done by the administrative disposition in the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations, it can be anticipated that the residents in the affected area will directly and seriously cause the environmental damage due to the relevant disposition. Such environmental benefits are directly and specifically protected to the individual residents, unless there are special circumstances, they are presumed that there is a concern about infringement or infringement on the environmental interest, and the standing to sue is recognized by being recognized as the legal interests that are presumed to be protected by the relevant administrative disposition, and the residents outside the affected area should prove that environmental damage exceeding the limit of tolerance prior to such disposition is protected by law (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 20006Du306.206.

(2) Determination

Therefore, whether the plaintiffs suffer or are likely to suffer environmental damage exceeding the tolerance limit compared to the previous dispositions of this case shall be determined by whether the plaintiffs reside in the area subject to prior examination of environmental impact, or even if they reside outside the area subject to prior examination of environmental impact, whether the development projects of this case may infringe or threaten to infringe environmental benefits.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 13, and 31 (including virtual numbers), according to the appraisal results for damage arising from wind power generation equipment implemented in the instant case ( Jeju District Court 2006Kahap201), the damages arising from noise, forest, etc. arising from the installation and operation of wind power generation equipment shall reach the surrounding environment; the distance of 50 meters or more from the generation machine; the distance of 1.3 meters from the generation machine is anticipated to not be damaged; the land located in the adjoining area of 1.3 meters from the wind power generation site is to be at least 1.3 meters from the generation machine; the land located in the adjoining area of 2.5 meters from the wind power generation site is to be at least 1.3 meters from the development machine; the land located in the adjoining area of 1.3 meters from the 2.5 meters high-level 4 meters high-level 8 meters high-level m20 meters from the wind power generation site.

In full view of the above facts, the scope of the area subject to prior examination of environmental review of the project of this case is highly likely to be the site of this case and its surrounding area 1 km or 1.2 km in the radius. The plaintiffs can be presumed to have suffered damage to the cultivation of racing mast, fel, and fel, etc. conducted on these land if wind power generation is installed due to the disposition of this case because they reside in or own land in an area highly likely to be the target area, and they are likely to suffer damage to the cultivation of wind power generation, such as racing math, fel, and fel, etc. from these land

5. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

(a) Whether they are subject to advance consultations about the examination of environmental impact;

(i)the cause of the dispute;

According to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, land use is divided into urban areas, control areas, agricultural and forest areas, and natural environment conservation areas (Article 6), and control areas are classified into preservation management areas, production management areas, and planned management areas (Article 36(1)2). Meanwhile, according to Article 25 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy and Article 7 and attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the area of business in the management area under Article 6(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is at least 5,00 square meters in the case of the preservation management area, and at least 10,000 square meters in the case of the planning management area, the head of the relevant administrative agency shall, prior to the approval of the project, have the head of the consultation agency and the head of the relevant administrative agency conduct advance examination of the plan management area.

Therefore, the issue of whether advance consultation about the approval of the development project of this case is necessary is determined by the use of the project site of this case and the area of the project plan. ① At the time of the disposition of this case, the project site of this case is simply divided into “management area” under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and specifically falls under “Preservation management area” or “Planning management area”, and there was no specific use area designated, and there was no legislation that directly regulates cases where specific use area is not designated, and ② there was no clear legal standard to determine the project area of the development project, and there was conflict of opinion between the source and the defendant as seen earlier

(2) Whether the instant project site constitutes “Preservation Management Area”

(A) Criteria

Even if the detailed purpose of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is not determined on a development project site, an administrative agency shall conduct a specific investigation into the actual conditions and characteristics of the project site, future land use direction, etc., and conduct evaluation based thereon, and determine whether the relevant site conforms to the definition of a management area among the items of Article 36(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and then the need for environmental review and consultation on the basis of such determination is necessary. In addition, if it is premised on a planning and management area without considering the characteristics of the development project site as the defendant's judgment without considering the characteristics of the development project site, if it is presumed that the administrative agency neglected the designation of a specific special-purpose area, which could avoid more strict requirements of the Act on the Purpose of advance examination of environmental impact on the site to be designated as a conservation and management area or a production management area, it is evident that this is contrary to the legislative intent that enacted the prior examination system

(B) Determination

(2) Considering that the project site of this case was owned by residents of the village for the purpose of jointly conserving and conserving livestock and managing the environment of 70,00 square meters around the project site of this case, considering the overall purport of each statement and image of Gap's No. 5, 6, 34, 35, 38, and 47 (including various numbers) under the Act, it is reasonable to manage the environment-friendly conservation zone of this case as well as the environment-friendly conservation zone of 2,60,000 square meters around the project site of this case. It is also necessary to develop and manage the environment-friendly environment of 60,000 square meters around the project site of this case. It is also necessary to develop and manage the environment-friendly conservation zone of this case as well as the environment-friendly conservation zone of 6,000 square meters around the site of this case. It is also necessary to designate the environment-friendly conservation zone of this case as 6,000 square meters around the site of this case.

(C) Sub-decisions

However, insofar as the Defendant constitutes “management preservation area” and the instant disposition that approves the instant development project with a project area of at least 5,000 square meters is not subject to prior examination of environmental impact as stipulated in Article 25 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, the instant disposition is unlawful without any need to review further matters. [Even if the instant project site constitutes “plan management area” as alleged by the Defendant, the instant disposition is unlawful as follows: (a) there is a high room for exceeding 10,000 square meters of the instant project site area; and (b) the instant development project approval requires a prior examination of environmental impact; and (c) the instant disposition is unlawful.

(3) Area of the project site of this case

(A) Criteria

Article 7 (1) and [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19497 of May 30, 2006) provide that the head of the administrative agency concerned shall conduct prior examination of environmental impact with the head of the consulting agency and according to the project plan area and the purpose of the management area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. In this case, the meaning of the "project plan area" is not directly provided. In determining the "project area" as a basis for determining whether the development project is subject to prior examination of environmental impact, not only the final site for the implementation of the project but also the area actually developed or anticipated to be developed in the course of the implementation of the project shall be seriously reflected, and not only the area on the project plan submitted by the development project executor shall be dependent only on the area on the project plan submitted by the development project executor

(B) Determination

The Defendant, while taking the instant disposition, determined that the area of the instant development project is 1,00 square meters, 4,04 square meters, 1,960 square meters in total, and 6,418 square meters in total (the Defendant is merely 7,470.95 square meters in total, even if the above area is 1,052.95 square meters in total) but the area of temporary access road for the instant development project can be included in the project area. However, even if the area of the instant development project is for temporary access road, it exceeds 10,50 square meters (5 x 2.1 km) as well as 10,00 square meters in total on the site of the access road, 20 square meters in total, 1,960 square meters in lots, and 4,000 square meters in lots, 20 square meters in lots and 30,000 square meters in lots in lots and 16,000 square meters in lots in fact, are included in the area of the instant development project.

Therefore, even if the project site of this case falls under the "plan management area" under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act as alleged by the defendant, prior examination of environmental impact is necessary for approval of the development project of this case, and in this respect, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Whether the instant disposition is void as a matter of course (Article 3)

(1) The purpose of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy (amended by Act No. 8471 of May 17, 2007) is to ensure that all citizens enjoy a healthy and pleasant life by clarifying the rights and duties of the citizens and the obligations of the citizens and the obligations of the citizens with regard to environmental preservation and by setting the basic matters for environmental policies to prevent environmental pollution and environmental damage and by properly managing and preserving the environment (Article 1); the State, local governments, and business operators shall endeavor to minimize any harmful impacts on the environment due to the relevant administrative plan or development project to prevent any damage to the national land and natural environment due to the relevant administrative plan or development project (Article 7-2(3)); the head of the relevant administrative agency shall, in cases where he/she intends to establish and determine the administrative plan or permit the development project which has environmental impact to maintain the appropriateness of environmental standards and to preserve the natural environment, before such administrative plan, development project becomes final and permitted, etc. (Article 25, Article 25-2 and 3); the head of the relevant administrative agency shall not request the head of the relevant administrative agency to suspend the development project before such consultation is completed.

(2) The purport of the provisions of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy is not to protect the environmental public interest related to the project concerned by ensuring that the project is implemented in a way that does not harm the environment, but to protect the individual benefits that can live in a pleasant environment without being affected by the limit of tolerance by comparing the previous years by the residents in the area subject to prior environmental assessment that is expected to cause direct and significant environmental damage. If the project subject to prior environmental review and prior consultation takes measures such as approval without going through prior examination of environmental impact, it would not be possible to achieve the legislative purport of the prior examination of environmental impact to prevent environmental destruction and maintain and create a pleasant environment, and if such measures are taken without going through prior examination of environmental impact, it would not be possible to achieve the legislative purpose of the prior examination of environmental impact to prevent environmental damage and to maintain and create a pleasant environment, and therefore such defect of administrative disposition would be seriously and objectively obvious (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14363, Jun. 30, 2006, etc.).

(3) Therefore, although the instant development project constitutes a project subject to the prior examination of environmental impact under Article 25(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the instant disposition, which was conducted without undergoing prior examination of environmental impact, shall be deemed to be null and void due to significant and apparent defects.

C. Sub-committee

As long as the disposition of this case without consultation is null and void due to significant and apparentness of the defect in the subject matter of prior examination of environmental feasibility, the defect in the disposition of this case is not null and void as a matter of course, but merely a simple ground for revocation. The defendant's assertion (iv) that the disposition of this case should not be revoked in accordance with Article 28 of the Administrative Litigation Act even if there is a ground for revocation, is not reasonable.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is null and void, and since the plaintiffs are residents living in the vicinity or own land and have legal interest in seeking confirmation, the plaintiffs' primary claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant's appeal.

Judges Donsung (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) 1MW = 1,00 Kw

2) Total amount of 4,00 square meters for access road sites, total of 1,960 square meters for power generators sites, total of 454 square meters for power generators sites, total of 6,418 square meters for substations sites

3) Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy [Attachment 2] provides that “In the case of a project to create arboretums under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Creation and Furtherance of Arboretums Act, the area subject to the prior examination of environmental feasibility shall be based on the area actually developed, such as changing the form and quality of land, collecting soil and rocks, building structures, etc.,” and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy provides that “The area subject to the prior examination of environmental impact shall be based on the area which is established for the review, consultation, and management of environmental impact assessment under the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works concerning Environment, Traffic, Disasters, Etc.” (Article 241 of the Rules of the Ministry of Environment) and “the