[1] In a case where an environment impact assessment procedure under the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act was conducted but the contents of the environment impact assessment are incomplete, whether approval, etc. of a project subject to the environment impact assessment is unlawful due to such defect (negative with qualification)

[2] The case holding that the approval and disposition of the implementation plan of the above project is not unlawful on the ground that the degree of poorness of the contents of the environmental impact assessment on the construction project of the Seoul High-Speed Rail Construction Authority of the Korea High-Speed Rail Construction Authority is not sufficient to achieve the legislative purport of the environmental impact assessment system and it is not different from that of the environmental

[1] In light of the purport that the business should be conducted under Article 4 of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act (amended by Act No. 5302 of March 7, 1997), and the business subject to the environmental impact assessment under Articles 16 through 19 must be conducted, if the business subject to the environmental impact assessment was approved without going through such environmental impact assessment, the disposition should be deemed unlawful, but if the business was conducted without going through such an environmental impact assessment, even though the contents of the environmental impact assessment are somewhat inadequate, if the degree of the defect cannot achieve the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system, and it is not different from that of the failure to conduct the environmental impact assessment, such defect is a single element to determine whether there was an act of deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, etc., and it does not necessarily constitute an unlawful disposition such as approval, etc. as a matter of course.

[2] The case holding that the approval and disposition of the implementation plan of the above project is not unlawful on the ground that the degree of poorness of the contents of the environmental impact assessment on the construction project of the Seoul High-Speed Rail Construction Authority of the Korea High-Speed Rail Construction Authority is to the extent that it is impossible to achieve the legislative purport of the environmental impact assessment system, and it is not different

[1] Article 1 of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act (amended by Act No. 5302 of March 7, 1997), Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 1 of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act (refer to Article 1 of the current Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc.), Article 16 (refer to Article 17 of the current Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc.), Article 17 (refer to Article 19 of the current Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc.), Article 18 (refer to Article 20 of the current Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc.), Article 19 (refer to Article 21 of the current Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc.), Article 17 of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act (refer to Article 1 of the current Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc.)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19571 delivered on September 22, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2589)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Subdivision, Law Office, Attorneys Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Construction and Transportation (Attorney Lee Jin-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu35360 delivered on August 12, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

In light of the purport of Article 4 of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act (amended by Act No. 5302, Mar. 7, 1997; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), a project subject to the environmental impact assessment (hereinafter referred to as the "subject-matter") shall be determined, and Articles 16 through 19 shall be subject to the environmental impact assessment with respect to the subject-matter under the Act, if the subject-matter was approved without such environmental impact assessment, the disposition shall be deemed unlawful, or if the subject-matter was conducted without such environmental impact assessment, the subject-matter shall be deemed to be unlawful. However, even if the subject-matter of the subject-matter of the environmental impact assessment is somewhat defective, unless the degree of the defect is sufficient to the extent that it is impossible to achieve the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system, the failure shall be deemed to be a single factor to determine whether the subject-matter of the approval, etc. was a deviation or abuse of discretion, and it shall not be deemed that the pertinent approval, etc. is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1571, Sept. 22, 1997, 1998).

The court below held that the Korea High-Speed Construction Authority requested the Korea High-Speed Construction Authority to conduct an environmental impact assessment on the construction project of the Seoul High-Speed Railroad, which is located in the Seoul High-Speed Construction Project, gathered the opinions of residents on the draft environmental impact assessment prepared by the above company, reflecting the results, and submitted the written environmental impact assessment to the defendant. The defendant's request for supplementation of the deficiencies of 9 items, such as topography and geological features, and accordingly, the above Corporation made the disposition of this case which approved the implementation plan of the above base construction project after the consultation with the Minister of Environment. The defendant did not make a determination that the implementation plan of the above project site is beyond the scope of the environmental impact assessment, and the feasibility review of the complementary project site other than the above project site cannot be reflected in the specific design contents at the stage of the environmental impact assessment, and the excellent drainage plan is a plan to restrain flood damage only to the maximum extent possible by reflecting the implementation plan and the construction project plan, and it did not contain any specific error in the law as to the extent that it did not contain any limit to the plaintiffs's claim for a flood prevention.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)