2010Guhap25763 Nullification of approval of execution plan for electric power resource development business

It is as shown in the attached list of plaintiffs.

The Minister of Knowledge Economy

Korea Electric Power Corporation

March 4, 2011

March 25, 2011

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the Plaintiff A, medical corporation B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, P, P, Q, R, S, and T claims are dismissed, respectively.

2. The claims of the Plaintiff U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AO, AO, and AP are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On September 2008, the defendant confirmed that the disposition of approval of execution plan of electric source development business against the intervenor joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the " intervenor") was null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 2006, the Intervenor filed an application for approval on the implementation plan for electric power resource development business for the instant business with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant, regardless of whether before or after the change of name was made at the time of the change of name”) in order to prepare for the rapidly increasing demand for electric power, and to improve the stable supply and demand of electric power and the supply trust by forming a exchange network in the Seoul Metropolitan area.

-the outline of the project;

1. Sections: 765km : 345km 2) length of transmission lines: 65.098km (2 line sections: 58.190km, 4 line sections: 6,908km)

3) Electric wires: ACR 480 x 4B2C (65.098 km), ACR 410 km 28 x 2C (6.908 km)

(d) Support: 175 (4 lines 16 lines);

(e) Electric method: 3rd three lines;

6) Electric voltages: 345,000V (65.098km), 154,00 V (6.908km)

B. On September 25, 2008, the Defendant approved the implementation plan of the instant project that constructed 65,098km in the length of the line and 175 steel towers supporting the transmission line (hereinafter referred to as “transmission tower”) at the Gyeong-gun, Macheon-gun, Macheon-gun, and Hongcheon-gun, Cheongcheon-si, the Defendant announced the implementation plan as announced by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy No. 2008-144 on October 8, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

C. On the other hand, the plaintiffs are the owners or neighboring residents of the Gyeonggi-gun AP land located in the business area of the business of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff A, medical corporation B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, S, and T are not eligible to seek invalidation of the disposition of this case.

On the other hand, even if a third party, who is not the direct counter party to an administrative disposition, is not a party to an administrative disposition, if the legal interest protected by the administrative disposition is infringed by the law, it shall be entitled to be judged by the propriety of the administrative action. The legal interest refers to the case where there is individual, direct, and specific interest protected by the laws and regulations of the relevant disposition and the relevant laws and regulations, and in the case where there is a general, indirect, abstract interest commonly held by the general public as a result of protecting the public, it shall not be deemed that there is any legal interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 2006). Although the above plaintiffs owned the land in the neighboring business area of this case but are not residents residing therein (see the plaintiff's list among the plaintiff's complaint submitted by the plaintiff). The decline in property value claimed by the above plaintiffs is not an indirect, factual, or economic interest and thus there is no claim for confirmation of the disposition of this case.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiffs 1’ assertion

Application for approval for the implementation plan of the project of this case and the disposition of this case accordingly are null and void due to the following significant and apparent defects:

1) procedural illegality

An intervenor did not seek opinions from residents as prescribed by Article 5-2 (1) of the former Electric Source Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 9376 of Jan. 30, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the "former Electric Source Development Promotion Act") at the time of applying for the approval of the project of this case.

2) EXEON ACT. - Abuse of discretionary power

Although there have already been several power transmission lines in Gyeonggi-gun A Q in which the plaintiffs are residing, the routes of the instant business transmission line have gone through A Q because they take the form of bypassing rather than straight lines. As a result, the plaintiffs not only have been infringed upon the right to life and health due to electromagnetic wave damage but also have a high risk of interference with noise, lightning, electric shock, and life, the defendant did not consider alternative measures and did not properly balance the benefits infringed by the interested parties such as the plaintiffs and the public interest realized through the instant business. Accordingly, the instant disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretionary power in its content.

B. Relevant provisions

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the attached Table.

C. Determination of procedural illegality assertion

1) Facts of recognition

A) From March 11, 2003, the intervenor commenced the selection of the progress site, environmental impact assessment, design survey, etc. of the project of this case from around March 1, 2003, and completed the working council on the selection of transmission transformation locations on May 22, 2003, and after consultation with the local government and military units on July 22, 2003, the intervenor selected the optimal progress (draft) on August 21, 2003.

B) The intervenor prepared a draft environmental impact assessment report on the project of this case before preparing the implementation plan of the project of this case, and the head of Pyeongtaek-gun prepared a draft environmental impact assessment report on August 28, 2004 in order to gather opinions from residents related to environmental impact assessment under Article 204-217 of the Gai-gun public notice on August 28, 2004 (the period for public inspection: the period from August 28, 2004 to October 5, 2004; the place for public inspection: the Ministry of Environment protection of the Pyeongtaek-gun Office, the office of Pyeongtaek-si, the office of Pyeongtaek-si, the office of Pyeongtaek-si, the office, etc.), and the holding and public notice of resident explanatory sessions (the date and time of holding the AT of Pyeongtaek-gun Office: 00 on September 15, 2004; the deadline for submitting residents' opinions: the expiration date of public inspection period).

C) In the draft of the environmental impact assessment made public as above, six additional bills (No. 1, No. 1-1, No. 1-2, No. 1-3, No. 2, and No. 3) were included, but all of the proposals passed jointly by the Gyeonggi-si Agu Telecommunication System up to six transmission towers.

D) On September 6, 2004, the intervenor held a resident explanatory meeting at the office of Pyeongtaek-gun AT on September 6, 2004, but did not properly proceed due to interference with the entrance of the resident explanatory meeting of the "AR Committee" to the participants, and the "AR Committee" requested a public hearing.

E) On May 26, 2005, the intervenor publicly announced a public hearing on the environmental impact assessment (date:: June 6, 2005; 14:00 on June 17, 2005; hereinafter referred to as "date;") and tried to hold a public hearing at the meeting room of Pyeongtaek-gun, the company was born, and on June 30, 2005, another public hearing was again held on June 30, 2005 (temporary: July 19, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the "place") and on July 19, 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 9, Witness AS’s Testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

A) The main text of Article 5-2(1) of the former Electric Source Development Promotion Act provides that when an electric source developer intends to obtain approval of an execution plan for electric source development business, he/she shall hear opinions of residents and relevant experts before the application for approval is filed. However, the proviso of Article 5-2(1) provides that the same shall not apply to cases where residents

B) The facts that the intervenor made a public inspection of the draft environmental impact assessment report, and the resident briefing sessions against AT residents did not properly proceed due to the disturbance of the "AR Committee" are as seen above. Although the resident briefing sessions did not properly proceed, it cannot be deemed that the resident briefing sessions were not held because it was caused by the disturbance of residents, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the resident briefing sessions were not held due to the failure of the intervenor. Since the plaintiffs did not attend the public hearing, it cannot be deemed that the public hearing prescribed in the former Act on Assessment of Environmental, Traffic, Disasters, Etc. (amended by Act No. 9037 of March 28, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "Environmental Impact Assessment Act") was not held. Therefore, the intervenor has determined the progress of the application for the approval of the Electric Source Development Promotion Act after going through the public inspection of draft environmental impact assessment report, resident explanatory sessions, and the procedure for gathering opinions against the residents under the proviso to Article 6(1) of the Act on Assessment of Electric Source Development.

C) According to Article 5-2(2) of the former Electric Source Development Promotion Act, when the opinion of the residents, etc. heard is deemed reasonable, an electric source developer is required to reflect the opinion of the residents, etc. in the implementation plan as much as possible, but the above provision merely purports to reflect the reasonable opinion of the residents, etc. in the implementation plan, and it is difficult to view that the pros and cons of the implementation

D) The plaintiffs' assertion that the intervenor did not hear opinions from residents as prescribed by the former Electric Source Development Promotion Act at the time of the application for the approval of the project of this case is without merit.

D. Determination as to the substantive illegality argument

1) Facts of recognition

A) Of the instant projects, the sections affected by the Plaintiffs are the sections between 1 and 5 from the transmission tower. The result of the calculation of the basic scopic system of the transmission line of the instant project is as follows. The instant project is likely to install the transmission line at a distance of 32 meters, 350 meters away from the Plaintiffs’ dwelling place.

A person shall be appointed.

B) Under the International Health Organization (WHO) Environmental Health Standards (2007 announced in 2007), 83.3T (i.e., 83G, 1uT =10mG) recommended the safety standard of human body of the electronic system. In Korea, Article 17 of the Electrical Equipment Technical Standards (Notice No. 2006-65) of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy and Article 2001-88 of the Information and Communications Ministry Notice No. 2001-88 of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy set the self-guidelines as 8

C) The measurement results of electromagnetic waves in the direct lower portion (1m above the ground) of 345ccV 81 power transmission lines currently in operation in Korea are the maximum value of 125G and the average value of 28.2mG.

D)the results of the electronic system measurement of the general home appliances;

A person shall be appointed.

E) Electronic and harmful judgment criteria

(1) Article 206-65 ( July 4, 2006) notification by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Article 17 of the technical standards for electrical equipment and facilities, Article 2001- Article 3 of the Ministry of Information and Communication Notice No. 88 ( October 10, 2001) of the Standards for Protection of Radio Waves (ICNRP)

(2) On June 18, 2007, the World Health Organization published the results of the study conducted for 12 years (from 1996 to 2007) as the World Health Organization Gadra as follows:

The biological action that the cancer is being developed by the exposure to the electronic system is not revealed, and that it is not clear that it has the effect on health to reduce the exposure to the electronic system. The adoption of the International Labour Guidelines established to protect the general public and the professional: 83.3; vocational: 83.3; 416.7Tpolar low-frequency Abiopia; 416.7; and

F) From 1999 to 2002, the Intervenor’s Electric Power Institute requested the AU and the AV Research Institute to exposure 5UT, 83.3u, and 5001T to the self-defense of 5UT, 83.3u, and 501T, and confirmed that any toxicity impact is not limited to the results of the safety assessment on the pregnancy, childbirth, and behavioral patterns.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 7 to 10, witness AS's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

A) Determination of sentence defects such as damage to electromagnetic waves

In light of the above facts, the Intervenor’s assertion that the Intervenor did not consider the damage caused by the project in this case is without merit, in light of the following circumstances.

(1) Although high-tension power transmission lines, such as the transmission line of the instant business, have been likely to strengthen their standards with respect to the impact of high voltages on the human body, Korea has not yet stipulated legal provisions and should set the standards set forth by international organizations, etc. as one-way criteria for determination. According to the environmental impact assessment for the instant business, the impact of electromagnetic waves on the installation of the instant business line is within the scope of the official recommendation criteria presented by the World Health Organization, etc.

(2) The impact of electromagnetic waves anticipated according to the instant project cannot be seen as greater than the result of the measurement of electromagnetic waves emitted from the general home appliances, as seen earlier.

(3) Plaintiff V and AI asserted that the 50% of the 1st century, which was raised after the power transmission line was installed in around 2000, does not reach the previous 50%. However, according to the Intervenor’s experiments, it is not clearly verified whether the result claimed by the above Plaintiffs was caused by the impact of the electronic system formed in the power transmission line or medically.

(4) After a thorough examination of the impact of electromagnetic waves on the instant project, the Intervenor did not establish a separate plan for reducing the impacts of the electromagnetic system following the completion of the instant project, by predicting that there is almost little influence on the electric transmission line, but, if necessary, indicated a plan to establish appropriate reduction measures through consultation with local residents.

(5) The intervenor examines the relationship with the instant project through the environmental impact assessment even with respect to noise damage, lightning, electric shock, and fear of interference with life, as alleged by the plaintiffs. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there exists injury exceeding several limits, contrary to the content of the environmental impact assessment submitted by the intervenor, as otherwise alleged by the plaintiffs.

B) Determination on other assertion of deviation or abuse of discretionary power

The act of installing electric power source facilities according to the detailed plan for the execution of electric power resource development business based on the government's basic plan for power supply and demand is a kind of administrative plan that is conducted based on professional and technical judgment, and it is not legitimate that the administrative body has to make a decision on the administrative plan in such a way that it guarantees the private interest of a specific person to the maximum extent. The decision on the administrative plan is legitimate, provided that the reasonableness of balancing profits and the consistency of the decision on the administrative plan is recognized, and in light of the following circumstances, the disposition in this case is not deemed to have exceeded or abused the scope of discretion,

(1) The project of this case is highly necessary for the public interest in order to promote industrial development and the improvement of living standards by preparing for the rapidly increasing demand of electricity in the metropolitan area and in the Gyeonggi-do area and by improving the stable supply and reliability of electricity through the formation of the exchange network in the metropolitan area.

(2) In formulating the instant project implementation plan, the Intervenor gathered the opinions of residents, etc. through the environmental impact assessment, the draft environmental impact assessment procedure, the resident briefing session, the public hearing, etc. as seen earlier, and the prior consultation procedure with the relevant authorities, such as the Han River Basin Environmental Office, the Macheon City, etc. was completed.

(3) The right side of the transmission line of this case is located along with AW in the south of the East, and it is difficult to change the line to the right side. The left side of the new line is adjacent to AX Group Residential Area, and there is a technical problem that should enhance the height of the steel tower more than 100 meters to cross the new new line. The point of withdrawal of the new transmission line of this case is determined along with the installation of electric power facilities such as transformers and blockings at the stage of the transformation, and it is difficult to change the line to the left side, so it is difficult to change to the left side.

(4) The intervenor, after a comprehensive comparison and analysis of each item of the natural environment, living environment, social environment, location security, design and construction, etc. of the transitional area, was selected, he reviewed six alternatives for the progress of the project in the implementation plan of the project of this case until the transmission tower of the sports Pyeong Group No. 1 through No. 10, and finally selected the progress of the project of this case. The defendant recognized that the choice would be reasonable, and the decision of this case was made. In general, it is reasonable that the progress following the passage through the high pressure transmission channel and the selection of the site for the construction of the transmission tower are facing many interests of residents and landowners of the anticipated candidate site. In particular, electric power resource development business is a business requiring a high level technical review on electric power, and it is necessary to respect the implementation plan formulated by the electric power resource developer, and the disposition of this case by the defendant, the competent authority for approval decision of this case, in principle.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits of this case, the claims of plaintiffs A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, K, M, M, N,O, P, Q, R, S, and T are unlawful. Each of the claims of this case except the above plaintiffs is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Number of judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Jeong Jae-hee

Judges Yang Jae-chul

1) Under Paragraph 3 of the reasoning of the judgment, the plaintiffs other than the plaintiffs mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the reasoning of the judgment are the plaintiffs for convenience.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.