송전선로 권원확보사업 고시 무효 확인 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance as to this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing it as is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420
[Additional Decision] The Plaintiff made the instant disposition in the trial based on Article 2 subparag. 2 (b) of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act (hereinafter “instant provision”). The Plaintiff asserts that, like the instant case, the said provision should be interpreted as not being applied to the case where an electric power resource developer first installs or improves electric power resource facilities without securing the source for the land, etc... Article 2 of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act provides for “the business of installing or improving electric power resource facilities” as defined in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act, while prescribing “the business of installing or improving electric power resource facilities” as defined in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act, the “business of acquiring the land, etc.
According to this, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the provision of this case does not apply where it is intended to secure the right of use after the completion of the construction of electric source facilities after the completion of the construction is clearly contrary to the language and text of the above provision and the legislative intent expressed thereon.
In such a case, if an existing electric power resource development business is operated by the same electric power resource development business through the approval of the project implementation plan, the disposal of the project approval, and the expropriation procedure, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it would result in a serious damage to the public interest function that the electric power resource development business should be provided without interruption in the process.