2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a square registry with the 2,251m prior to Gwangju City (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and 866m2 adjacent thereto.

B. Around 203 and 5, the Intervenor filed an application with the Defendant for approval of an execution plan concerning electric power resource development business (hereinafter “construction business of this case”) for the stable supply of electricity in preparation for an increase in electric demand in the area of Leecheon-do, Gyeonggi-do.

C. On September 8, 2004, pursuant to Article 5(1) and (5) of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 7016 of Dec. 30, 2003), the Defendant approved and published an implementation plan for electric power source development business (hereinafter referred to as “the first approval of the implementation plan”) with the content of approving and approving (hereinafter referred to as “the first approval of the implementation plan”) electric power source development business (154km BV construction business”) with the size of 514m of land in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, with the size of 16,429m of 514m.

D. Meanwhile, in accordance with the above implementation plan, the intervenor anticipated that the power transmission line should pass through the airspace above 55 square meters out of the registry of 866 meters prior to D Special Metropolitan City owned by the plaintiff, if he connects the power transmission line to the straight line by installing the transmission tower Nos. 18 and 19 on each of the above land. On April 10, 2006, the intervenor requested the plaintiff to hold a consultation on compensation for losses by presenting KRW 2,285,250 as the compensation amount for losses that he did not pass to the plaintiff. After that, as a result of the installation of the power transmission tower Nos. 18 and 19 on each of the above land, the power transmission line connecting the power transmission line to the straight line would pass through the airspace above 427cm among the above land, and on August 18, 2006, the intervenor requested the plaintiff to hold a consultation by presenting the compensation amount of 19,428,500 won.

E. On September 2006, the Intervenor had a high voltage of 154kV’s voltage of use (hereinafter “the instant transmission line”) on the vertical airspace (52:82m above the ground) with no 427m2 out of the instant land as a result of the Plaintiff’s refusal of the said consultation. Around September 2006, the Intervenor installed a high voltage of 154kV’s voltage of use (hereinafter “the instant transmission line”).

F. The Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor had the duty to remove the instant transmission line on the ground of the instant land without acquiring the right to use the instant land from the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff had the duty to remove the instant transmission line. On October 20, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Intervenor seeking performance of the duty to remove the instant transmission line. On July 24, 2007, the said court rendered a judgment on July 24, 2007 that “the Intervenor removed 154kV high voltage power transmission line installed over the area of 427 square meters in the instant land,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive by the final judgment of the Supreme Court on November 27, 2008.

G. The intervenor applied for approval of the execution plan for electric source development business (hereinafter referred to as "business securing title of this case") aimed at compensating the Defendant for losses to the public space of the non-compensationed land and maintaining and repairing the relevant electric power facilities, and securing the right to use for the stable supply of electricity (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case") among the events in which the transmission line has elapsed due to the construction project of this case, in addition to a calculation of the 427m of square meters among the land in this case, and the Defendant approved and publicly announced the above implementation plan on February 5, 2009 (amended by Act No. 10272, Apr. 15, 2010) (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case").

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Article 5-2(1) of the Electric Source Development Promotion Act provides that when an electric source developer intends to obtain approval or approval for change of an execution plan, he/she shall hear the opinions of local residents and relevant experts before applying for approval or approval for change, but in the case of a project to secure the source of the land for electric source facilities, etc., he/she need not hear the opinions. Under the above provision, a project to secure the source of the land for electric source facilities which is installed without hearing the opinions of residents, etc. should be interpreted to be limited to the case where the electric source facilities are installed before the introduction of the above provision. If the above provision applies to a project to secure the source of the power source facilities after the installation of the electric source facilities regardless of the time when the electric source facilities are installed, the above provision unfairly infringes on the people's property rights and thus is unconstitutional. Therefore, the above provision is unlawful. Even if the intervenor omitted the plaintiff's opinion before applying for approval or approval for change of the first implementation plan, even if there is no need to hear the plaintiff's opinion prior to the first approval or approval for change.

(2) After obtaining the approval of the first implementation plan, the intervenor changed the implementation plan to the expiration of the transmission line on the land of this case and obtained the approval of the change from the defendant. The defendant's approval of the change was unfair as it was conducted without justifiable grounds.

(3) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the intervenor prior to the disposition of this case for the performance of the obligation to remove the power transmission line of this case and the judgment was finalized. The disposition of this case is based on the application for approval of the implementation plan for the business of securing the title of this case with the intent to circumvent the above final judgment of the intervenor who has the obligation to remove the power transmission line of this case, and thus, it is unlawful.

(4) On the instant land and its neighboring land, the Plaintiff planned to build a comprehensive sanatorium for older persons including residential facilities, medical facilities, and resting facilities. However, as the first implementation plan or approval for the modification thereof was granted, the Plaintiff’s facility construction plan was practically impossible due to the permission of high voltage lines on the instant land due to the instant disposition, and thus, the Plaintiff’s facility construction plan was required to realize the plan. If it was to realize the plan, the Plaintiff’s facility construction plan was enormous cost of KRW 2 billion to KRW 5 billion. Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful since the Plaintiff suffered significant damage to the Plaintiff exceeding the permissible limit.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion in paragraph (1)(2)

(A) Inasmuch as the initial implementation plan and the modification thereof and the instant disposition are separate dispositions, the validity of the instant disposition cannot be asserted on the ground of a mistake in each of the foregoing preceding dispositions, barring any circumstance to deem that the initial implementation plan and the modification thereof are invalid as a matter of course. hereinafter, whether the initial implementation plan and the modification thereof constitute an invalidation as a matter of course and the illegality of the instant disposition are examined.

(B) Article 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Electric Source Development (amended by Act No. 7016, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the electric source developer shall prepare an implementation plan for electric source development business and obtain approval from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and shall also obtain approval from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy when he intends to modify approved matters other than minor matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy shall hear the opinion of the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor having jurisdiction over the relevant electric source development business area in advance and seek approval from the Committee after consultation with the head of the relevant central administrative agency. However, the above Act does not provide that the electric source developer shall hear the opinion of the local residents and the relevant experts before the application for approval or alteration of the plan. Since the Act is amended by Act No. 7016, Dec. 30, 2003; the Act provides that the former Act is amended by Act No. 5-2, which is newly constructed and its name shall be changed within the area of land and its own.

In light of the fact that the hearing procedure may be omitted, it is limited to the property right of the owner who does not proceed in order to achieve the above public interest purpose. In light of the fact that the contents and limit of the property right are consistent with the purport of the above Constitution that provides for the contents and limit of the property right by law, and that the degree of such restriction is difficult to be deemed to be in violation of the excessive prohibition principle, it shall not be deemed that the newly established provision of the above amended Act provides that the business of acquiring the land, etc. of the installed power source facilities or securing the right to use the installed facilities without hearing the opinions of residents, etc. is limited to the business of securing the right to use

(C) Comprehensively considering the above-related Acts and the above-mentioned facts, the intervenor applied for the approval of the first implementation plan to the defendant around May 2003. Thus, the defendant's approval is legitimate without going through the procedures for hearing the opinions of the residents, etc. pursuant to the Act on Special Cases Concerning Electric Source Development before the amendment by Act No. 7016 of Dec. 30, 2003 (the above revised Act applies to the approval of the change of the defendant. However, the change of the implementation plan falls under the case where the project area or the length is changed within the scope of 30/100 and the procedure for hearing the opinions of the residents, etc. under the above revised Act is not required to go through the procedures for hearing the opinions of the residents, etc. under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Electric Source Development before the amendment by Act No. 7016 of Dec. 30, 2003). Accordingly, the defendant's disposition against the defendant is not necessary to go through the procedure for hearing the opinions of the residents, etc.

In addition, the first approved implementation plan and the revised implementation plan of the construction project of this case are the same with the fact that the transmission tower of 18 times is installed on the 514m (514m in the land G G forest after division) of F forest 16,429m in the city prior to the division, and the installation of the transmission line connecting the above transmission tower with the straight line is to be installed on the 253m (253m2 in the land after division) of H forest 47,008m2 in the above H forest 47,000m2 (253m2 in the land after division) prior to the division. Accordingly, although there is no change in the fact that the transmission line passes the part of the land owned by the plaintiff, the number and size of the land owned by the plaintiff and that it is merely a result of a measurement that the approval of alteration is not unlawful because it is a result of a minor change or an error that the intervenor did not make a mistake.

(D) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since the approval of the first implementation plan or the modification thereof cannot be deemed to be null and void as well as cannot be deemed to be unlawful.

(2) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion as to paragraph (3)

In full view of the above relevant Acts and the above facts, the intervenor filed an application for approval of the implementation plan for the project of securing the title of this case in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act, and the defendant made the disposition of this case in accordance with the above Acts, so no error exists, and the above final judgment is unlawful, and it is confirmed that the intervenor did not have the title to use the land of this case before acquiring the right to use the land of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case in order to secure the right to use the land of this case owned by the plaintiff

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion as to paragraph (4)

In light of various circumstances acknowledged as mentioned above, the transmission line of this case constitutes a national core facility of public interest as a 154kV line for the supply of electricity to the residential complex, factory complex, etc. in the Gyeonggi-do area, the removal of the transmission line of this case and relocation of the transmission line of this case, as well as the cost of removal and relocation of a considerable size, additional losses incurred due to business delay, the Intervenor acquired the right to use the space over the land of this case by the acceptance ruling in accordance with the disposition of this case, and the restriction on the Plaintiff’s property right can be compensated with adequate monetary compensation. In light of the above, the mere fact that the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case causes substantial damage to the Plaintiff compared to the public interest to be achieved by the disposition of this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the disposition of this case is illegal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Jin-law

Judges Choi Young-hoon

A person shall be appointed.