208Du2170 Revocation of permission for change in occupancy and use of rivers

1. Members:

Gangwon IT INT

2. Article;

71C

3. Kim;

Lecturers

4. Kim;

5. Article;

Plaintiff 4 and 5 Address Gangwon D E

6. Kim

Lecturers

7. Kim

Gangwon OPIONS IND OTRINE OTCOONSSNS

A person shall be appointed.

Gangwon LTE MTRS COLORS COLORS ms

9. Maximum;

79 m 0 - -

[Judgment of the court below]

Hongcheon-gun

Litigation Performers, Kim, Kim

L 740A

Gangwon LED 0 203

Representative Director Kim

Seoul High Court Decision 2007 - 292 Decided December 21, 2007

May 29, 2008

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground of the administrative disposition, even if a third party who is not the direct counter party of the administrative disposition, is legally protected interest due to the administrative disposition, if the legal interest is infringed by the administrative disposition, the decision of its propriety can be obtained by filing an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the disposition or the confirmation of invalidity. The legal interest here refers to the individual, direct, and specific interest protected by the laws and regulations on the disposition in question and the relevant laws and regulations, and the general, indirect, and abstract interest of the general public as a result of the public interest

In addition, if the scope of the right of influence that is expected to be infringed on the environmental interest due to the business that is conducted by the disposition is specifically stipulated in the relevant administrative disposition-based law, residents in the affected area are expected to suffer direct and serious environmental damage due to the relevant disposition. Thus, residents in the affected area who are likely to be infringed on the environmental interest may file an administrative litigation by asserting that they are direct and specific interests protected by the law of each individual (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 2006Du14001, Dec. 22, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is justified in holding that the plaintiffs are qualified to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case against the plaintiffs, on the ground that they have direct and specific environmental interests that are individually protected in relation to the above disposition as residents within the area subject to prior examination of environmental feasibility, which are anticipated to cause direct and significant environmental damage due to the disposition of permission for change of occupation and use of this case.

There is no error of law as alleged in the judgment below, and this part of the ground of appeal is without merit.

2. On the second and third grounds for appeal

A. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, even if the permission of conversion of the head of Hongcheon National Forest Management Office for the execution of the development project of this case and the permission of the defendant's occupation and use of rivers were separately made, each of the above permission is to implement a single development project called the construction of Hongcheon Power Plants. Whether the development project of this case is subject to prior examination of environmental impact under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy should not be determined separately from the above permission. Thus, the development project of this case is subject to prior examination of environmental impact

Thus, the disposition of this case that the defendant did not notify the head of the agency concerned of his opinion on the review of the change of the company's affairs under Article 27 (1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy is unlawful. Thus, the decision of the court below as above is just, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged.

B. According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, since the Red River is composed of sand and gravels each bend, the characteristics of the sloped river are well preserved. The sand president maintains sediment flow from the upper stream, especially by wind and flood, etc., they form a unique sediative form in the lower part of the red river and its surrounding areas. Such lectures show that if it is cut off by "dam," the inflow of sand, gravel, and rock, etc. from the upper part of the upstream which is the source of the lower stream can be cut off, the supply of sediment and balance is lost, and the existing sand saws can not be seen as being 0 years if there are no adverse opinions on the development project of this case, such as high-quality 0% of the existing emuliation and emuliation in the surrounding areas of the river, and there is no possibility that the existing emuliation in the development project of this case may be changed to 0% of the existing emuliation and emuliation.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition, which was conducted by the Defendant to the head of the original local environmental office without due process, such as seeking opinions about advance consultations about the examination of environmental impact, is more likely to cause harm to the natural environment and ecosystem of the river due to the instant disposition than the benefits to be infringed due to the cancellation of the disposition.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no illegality as alleged in the disposition of the court below that revoked the disposition of this case.

The grounds of appeal are without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Shin Hyun-chul

Justices Kim Gin-tae

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn

Justices Cha Han-sung