2. B religious organizations;

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

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

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Plaintiff Company A, B religious organizations, C, D, E, and F are co-owners of the Ho-dong H 3,471.7m (1 December 6, 2006, 150.6m2, 2, JJ 150.6m2, 3 K 630.1m2, hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant apartment”). The Plaintiff Company A, B, religious organizations, C, D, E, and F are co-owners of LM apartment constructed on the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “the instant apartment”). The Plaintiff Company is a co-owner of the instant apartment.

(2) The intervenor, around September 199, installed the same power equipment (hereinafter referred to as the "electric equipment of this case") as below in the ground of this case on the ground of the land of this case, without authority, in the process of performing the construction of Qbs from the site of this case to the underground transformation station, at the pre-stage stage of constructing Qbs on the land of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government N-gu (10: 0: 1,450.9m on July 29, 2003, 200: P 6,739m2) which was owned by the intervenor, and occupied and used the above land until now.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Progress of the relevant lawsuit

(1) Plaintiff A, D, and G filed a lawsuit against the Intervenor seeking removal of the electric power districts of this case as Seoul Central District Court 2006 jointly with 109176. On April 15, 2009, the above court rendered a ruling citing all the above Plaintiffs’ claims. Seoul High Court 2009Na43142 decided that the Intervenor dismissed the Intervenor’s appeal on October 14, 2009. The Intervenor filed an appeal with the Supreme Court 2009Da91781 Decided July 22, 2010 on the land of this case. The Plaintiff’s land was used as the site of the apartment complex of this case. The Plaintiff’s land established by the Intervenor was not in excess of 40 meters above to secure the Plaintiff’s new construction of the electric power districts of this case, and the Plaintiff’s land was not in excess of 10 meters away and supplied to the Seoul High Court for the purpose of removing and using the land of this case for the purpose of this case.

C. Circumstances of the instant disposition

Around December 2009, an intervenor filed an application with the Defendant for approval of the execution plan for electric source development project for the electric source development project (hereinafter referred to as the "electric source development project") in accordance with Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Electric Source Development Promotion Act in order to secure the installation right of the electric source of this case. On March 31, 2010, in accordance with Article 5 (1) and (5) of the Electric Source Development Promotion Act, the Defendant issued a disposition for approval of the execution plan for electric source development (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") and announced it:

1. The name and address of the project operator; 2. The name and address of the project operator: the objective of the project: the project operator; 3. The project operator: the project operator shall compensate for the losses incurred by the use of the underground space of the unused land and shall contribute to the stable supply of electricity by acquiring the license fee for the maintenance and repair of the relevant electric facilities from among the site for electric power equipment: the project operator shall be 4.4. the project operator.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 12 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) In rendering the instant disposition, the intervenor did not undergo the procedure to hear the opinions of the residents under Article 5-2(1) of the Electric Source Development Promotion Act.

(2) The Defendant did not undergo deliberation by the committee for promotion of electric source development business under Article 5(4) of the Electric Source Development Promotion Act prior to the instant disposition.

(3) In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant did not prepare and publicly notify a topographic map under Article 8(2) of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The plaintiffs' first assertion that the Electric Source Development Promotion Act requires the procedure of hearing opinions of the residents in the area affected by the implementation of the project subject to the project, etc. prior to the implementation of the project, the purport of which is to reflect the opinions of many interested parties such as local residents, etc. in the selection of sites that are the basis of the project plan, and to rationally adjust their mutual interests to prevent unfair infringement of rights and secure the democratization and trust in administration. However, in the case of a project to secure the right to use electric source facilities already installed as the project in this case, the adjustment of interests between interested parties such as local residents is not required in the selection of sites. In the case of securing the right to use electric source facilities already installed with the landowner's consent, it is unnecessary to approve the implementation plan under the Electric Source Development Promotion Act because the project is conducted through consultation between the electric source developer and the landowner. In this regard, it seems that the Electric Source Development Promotion Act prepares the procedure of obtaining the approval of the implementation plan and expropriation of land in accordance with the plan without the landowner's consent.

However, according to the above facts and evidence No. 14, it is difficult to present to the local residents who are affected by the existence of the above power equipment other than the owner of the land of this case in that the power equipment of this case is located 47 meters underground. ② At the time of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff corporation A, D, and G had already filed a lawsuit against the intervenor seeking removal of the power equipment of this case and won the judgment in the first instance court and the appellate court. The plaintiffs continued consultation on the maintenance of the power equipment of this case between the intervenor and the intervenor. Thus, even if the intervenor did not hold a residents' meeting separately, the plaintiffs' opinion on the installation of the power equipment of this case was not sufficiently delivered to the intervenor. ③ Even if the intervenor did not present a residents' meeting, the plaintiffs' opinion on the installation of the power equipment of this case, and the plaintiffs' opinion on the ground of Article 18-3(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act had been sufficiently reflected in the execution plan of this case's land of this case.

Therefore, the first argument of the plaintiffs is without merit.

(2) According to Article 5(4) of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act as to the second argument by the plaintiffs, where the defendant intends to approve the execution plan for electric power resource development business, it shall be subject to prior deliberation by the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Committee. However, the approval of minor matters among the implementation plan may not be subject to deliberation by the Committee. According to Article 15-3(3) of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act, one of the above minor matters is an implementation plan for the business of acquiring land, etc. or securing the right to use the installed electric power resource facilities, and the execution plan without objection is included in the result of consultation with the head of the relevant central administrative agency. However, as seen earlier, the disposition of this case is related to the business to secure the right to use the electric power resource facilities already installed. In full view of the purport of each statement in subparagraphs B through 6, the defendant can be acknowledged that the disposition of this case was not reached without undergoing deliberation by the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Committee, and therefore, the defendant cannot be said to have procedural defect in the disposition of this case.

Therefore, the second argument of the plaintiffs is without merit.

(3) The main text of Article 8(2) of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use concerning the plaintiffs' third assertion provides that where the head of a central administrative agency designates a region, district, etc., he/she shall prepare a topographical map indicating the region, district, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "sub-section map") in the topographical map indicating the land registration, and publicly notify it in the Official Gazette, and where the head of a local government designates a region, district, etc., he/she shall prepare a topographical map and publicly notify it in the Official Gazette. The instant disposition does not constitute an act of designating a region, district, etc. by the head of a central

Therefore, the third argument of the plaintiffs is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed due to the lack of reasonable grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jong-soo

Judges Kim Jae-young

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.