2014Nu59766 Action demanding confirmation of invalidity of the public notice of the business securing title to the power transmission line

A

The Minister of Trade, Industry

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap52725 decided July 11, 2014

April 22, 2015

May 13, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On December 18, 2012, the part concerning the business of securing title to the power transmission line among the notification of approval of the execution plan for the power resource development business, which was announced by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy, is invalid.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is that the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to that of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

【Supplementary Judgment】

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case was made at the trial on the basis of Article 2 subparagraph 2 (b) of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as "the provisions of this case"), and that as in the case of this case, the above provision should be interpreted as not being applied to the case where the electric power resource developer has completed the installation of electric power source facilities first without securing the right to use the land, etc.

Article 2 of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act defines the purpose of the electric power source development business as stipulated in subparagraph 2 (a) and separately provides for “the business of installing or improving the electric power source facilities” through the instant provision (b). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant provision does not apply to the case where the Plaintiff seeks to secure the right to use the electric power source ex post facto after the completion of the construction of electric power source facilities is in contravention of the language and intent of the aforementioned provision and the legislative intent indicated therein. In such a case, if the Plaintiff performs the same electric power source development business after removing the electric power source facilities installed and completed in the existing area and restoring them to its original state, as alleged by the Plaintiff, through the approval of the project implementation plan, the decision-making and expropriation procedures, which would result in the loss to the owner of the relevant land, and in the process, it would seriously undermine the public interest function that the power source should be provided without interruption of the relevant electric power source development business.” Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff cannot be accepted the Plaintiff’s subsequent claim.

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed on the ground that it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable with this conclusion. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit

The presiding judge, the whole judge;

Judges Dok-woo

Judges Yoon Jong-dae