2. M;

Attorney Lee Jae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.

○○, the first instance court’s “Plaintiffs” in the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s “Plaintiffs and co-Plaintiffs in the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s “Plaintiffs and co-Plaintiffs in the first instance court’s first

○ The 7th written judgment of the first instance court and the 8th to 19th written judgment shall be followed as follows.

B) On April 9, 2015, the intervenor invited the major personnel and residents of the X Center located in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, 2015 to explain the construction plan, such as a transformation station, and 30 residents’ opinions were present. As to this, the plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the above explanation and opinion hearing procedure was formal, but it is insufficient to acknowledge the facts of the assertion merely by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 9 and 10, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

C) On November 17, 2015, the astronomical City publicly announced the resident inspection and the holding of briefing sessions on the instant implementation plan. The aforementioned public announcement was written in detail, including the outline of electric source facilities, the location and size of the electric source development business area, the implementation period, and the fact that the resident presentation is held at the meeting room of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government Office on November 24, 2015, and that the implementation plan of this case can be perused at the office of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government Office (Industrial Economy and Regional Economic Team) and the office of the conflict management department of the Jung-gu Construction Agency. The above public announcement was implemented until December 4, 2015 (as alleged by the plaintiffs, even if the public announcement was made only in the Official Gazette and regional daily newspapers, such circumstance alone alone does not deem that there is a serious or objective reason for illegality).

D) On November 24, 2015, at the Seo-gu Office in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon. The intervenor explained the contents of the instant implementation plan at the above briefing session and implemented the procedure for gathering opinions from residents, etc. In this regard, the plaintiffs asserted that the number of persons present at the time is not more than 15, and the number of persons present at the time is unclear, so it is the same as those of the public hearing or briefing session. However, the plaintiffs asserted that the above assertion is insufficient to acknowledge the facts of assertion only with some images of the Gap evidence 5 and the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

According to the statement of evidence Nos. 16 through 19 of the first instance judgment, the supplementary intervenor commissioned him as a member of the Committee, including the head of the expected progress area, the representative of residents, the representative of the civil environmental organization in Yan City, the representative of the academic community, the press, and the conflict mediation experts, and there is no particular problem in its composition." According to the statement Nos. 16 through 12 of the first instance judgment, the supplementary intervenor was urged as a member of the Committee. According to the statement of evidence Nos. 8 through 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is recognized that the intervenor promoted him as a member of the Committee, including the head of the Dong, the representative of residents, the representative of the civil environmental organization in Yanan City, the representative of the academic community, the press, the conflict mediation experts, etc. in the composition or voting process, and each statement of evidence Nos. 8 through 12 of the written evidence has been prepared differently from the facts, or the location advisory committee was formed only with the person who listen well to the horses of the intervenor.

○ The part from the last 8th to the 9th 5th eth eth eth eth eths in the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 7 and 13, the Daejeon District Court's branch of the Daejeon District Court on September 30, 2019, with respect to V, the head of the Seo-gu Northern District Office, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, and V on September 12, 2017, 14 police officers in relation to the instant project.

Recognizing the Defendant guilty of forging and using the paper for the “cognition signature book” in the name of the Defendant, and issuing a summary order of KRW 2 million is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2019Da4485, supra). However, there is no legal basis to deem the above list necessary in the application for the approval of the instant implementation plan, and if the entire purport of the pleading is shown in the statement in the evidence No. 6, the Intervenor was implementing a special support project for the village residents living in the vicinity of the power transmission line during the instant project, but the “cognition signature book” is merely deemed to be for the progress of such special support project, and it cannot be deemed that there is a serious or objective reason to believe that the instant disposition was seriously or objectively unlawful).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is legitimate, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Gamburh

Judges Shin Jae-ok

2) If the front portion of the written consent is moved as it is, the following. Ultimately, the above written consent is not the implementation of the project in this case, but the project in this case.

There seems to be a consent letter on the "Support Project" related thereto.

A person shall be appointed.