2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising from the Plaintiff’s participation.

A. The reasoning for this Court is as follows.

With the exception of adding the contents of the first instance judgment, it is identical to the reasons for the first instance judgment, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42

B. (1) In addition, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disposition is more desirable in terms of environmental protection, because they did not go through substantial review of the interests related to the instant disposition or reasonable balancing of interests, and that the instant disposition constitutes an unlawful disposition by abusing discretion and abusing discretion. However, the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition constitutes an unlawful disposition by abusing discretion and abusing discretion.

Domen Administrative plans refer to the activity standards or the establishment of such standards, which are established to realize certain order at a certain point in the future, by comprehensively coordinating the administrative means relating to the basis of professional and technical judgments regarding administration in order to achieve a specific administrative objective, and the administrative body has a relatively broad freedom in formulating and determining a specific administrative plan.

However, the freedom of formation of the administrative body cannot be considered as unlimited, and in the administrative plan, there is a limitation that the interests of the relevant persons should be fairly compared not only between public and private interests but also between public and private interests. Thus, when formulating and determining the administrative plan, the administrative body omitted matters that should be included in the subject of consideration of the benefits.