1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including those resulting from the participation, shall be all included.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are residents residing in Chungcheong City B (hereinafter “B”).

B. On December 10, 2015, the Defendant publicly notified “a disposition to approve the implementation plan of the C construction project (hereinafter “instant project”)” under Article 5(1) of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act as a public notice of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, as the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, as the Defendant announced the instant disposition. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) is the project executor of the instant project.

C. According to the instant project implementation plan, the 154kV high voltage line will be newly established, which passes through a single source (hereinafter “the instant project subject area”) such as Chungcheong City D, Chungcheong City E, Chungcheong City F, Chungcheong City G, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, H, Chungcheong City I (hereinafter “instant project subject area”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Intervenor’s assertion 1) determined the progress of the transmission line under the instant project, and violated Article 5-2 of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act, which provides for the hearing of opinions of residents as follows. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition was unlawful and approved the Intervenor’s project implementation plan. As such, the instant disposition was unlawful. ① The Intervenor constituted the Intervenor’s advisory committee for the selection of location, thereby excluding the representatives of B residents who suffered the greatest damages due to the instant project. ② The Intervenor presented an alternative to the Intervenor around July 2013 (the Plaintiff became aware of the progress of the transmission line candidate), and the Intervenor requested the Intervenor to review the progress plan upon the request of J-Myeon Office, and then the Intervenor failed to thoroughly express the above opinions of the Plaintiffs and the Haju.

(3) The intervenor does not present the alternative process prepared by the J chief of the Location Selection Advisory Committee in the course of determining the optimal progress of candidates and selected by the intervenor.