채굴계획불인가처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification or addition of some of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main text of Article 420 of the
Following the 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “A” in the 3rd of the judgment of the court of first instance is added to the phrase “the results of each fact-finding with respect to cooperatives of this court, environmental health institutes of this court, and the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.”
The following shall be added to the 7th judgment of the first instance court, the 10th judgment of the 7th judgment:
【On the other hand, the Plaintiff is scheduled to construct a pit crushing to minimize noise and dust generation. However, the Plaintiff’s report on the second mining adjustment committee’s agenda in 2016 (data attached to the results of fact-finding on the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy; hereinafter “instant on-site investigation report”).
A) According to the Plaintiff’s plan, it seems difficult to secure space for breaking the pit. Moreover, according to the Plaintiff’s plan, it is planned to gradually expand the waste stone storage yard, and even if breaking the pit in light of the Plaintiff’s production planning quantity, it cannot be ruled out that large amounts of dust is likely to occur in the process of piling the waste stone. We change the Plaintiff’s plan to “excess the waste stone in excess” of the “excess the 7th judgment of the first instance court,” which is “excess the 14th judgment of the 7th judgment of the first instance court, a house is located in a place located far away from 70 meters away from the predetermined mining area of this case, and four households are more likely to be affected by noise.”
The provisions of Articles 15 through 17 of the Judgment of the first instance shall be changed as follows.
③ Although the area planned to be designated as the area vulnerable to landslides in the vicinity of the instant area was not finally designated as the area vulnerable to landslides, there was a possibility of not being designated as the area due to the violation of private property.