Plaintiff 1 and 177 (Law Firm Shinsung, Attorneys Kang Dong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Metropolitan City (Attorney Park In-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Kim Sea Market (Attorney Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The supplementary intervenor (Attorney Shin Chang-won, Counsel for the supplementary intervenor)

May 7, 2007

Changwon District Court Decision 2006Guhap1225 Decided November 2, 2006

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against plaintiffs 78 and 79 shall be revoked, and the defendant revoked the approval of factory construction on April 27, 2006 against the applicant company listed in the separate sheet.

2. All remaining plaintiffs' appeals except plaintiffs 78 and 79 are dismissed.

3. The total cost of the litigation incurred by the intervention in the assistance is borne by the Intervenor, and the total cost of the litigation incurred between the Intervenor, the Intervenor, and the Defendant shall be borne by the Defendant, and the cost of the appeal incurred between the Plaintiffs except the Plaintiffs 78 and 79 shall be borne by the said Plaintiffs.

The decision of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant revoked the approval of factory construction for the applicant companies listed in the separate sheet on April 27, 2006 (the plaintiff asserted on June 5, 2006 the date of the above disposition and corrected it as above in the trial).

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are acknowledged in full view of the contents and images of evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 1 through 9, 24, 35, 44, and 47, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the first on-site inspection by the court of first instance.

A. Circumstances of the instant disposition

(1) On April 6, 2004, four companies, including Nonparty 1, and seven companies, including Nonparty 3, etc., managed by Nonparty 2, filed an application for approval of factory construction with each Defendant for the total of 148,245 square meters of land, etc. (hereinafter “the instant application site”) including the land of 140-40 square meters in the upper-dong area of Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, respectively, around April 9, 2004.

B. After requesting the examination of environmental impact to the basin basin basin environmental office in the Nakdong River basin, the Dogdong basin environmental office rejected the application for the approval of the above factory construction on the ground that the ground that the ground of cutting of the same area of the project site from the basin environmental office in the Nakdong River basin in the same area constitutes a sudden slope of approximately 100, and that there is a concern about the stability of amnesty.

On the other hand, on July 19, 2005, the applicant company mentioned in the attached Form, including the Defendant’s Intervenor, filed an application for approval of factory construction with the Defendant as the subject site.

And accordingly, the defendant requested the examination of environmental impact to the basin environmental office in the Nakdong River basin on November 3, 2005, and the basin environmental office in the Nakdong River basin in November 28, 2005 requested supplementation of the agreement between Busan Metropolitan City and Yangsan-si, which is directly affected by the construction of a factory in the application site in this case.

(v) The defendant requested the examination of environmental impact again on December 9, 2005 without properly supplementing the problems raised by the basin environmental office in the Nakdongdong River basin. On January 5, 2006, the basin environmental office in the Nakdong River basin in the Nakdong River basin in this case presented that it is not appropriate as a factory site because the water intake site in this case is being constructed at a place far away from the site of this case about 2.4 km from the site of this case, the water intake site in order to supply water to the development project area of the Yang River site in approximately 2.7 km, and the water intake facility for supplying water (hereinafter referred to as the "native intake water intake site") and water purification facilities are being constructed, and it violates Article 5 (2) of the Ordinance on the Designation of Areas Eligible for Factory Construction in the Kimhae-si, which came into force on June 4, 2005, and ③ it is not desirable that the application site in this case should be the site subject to the construction of this case due to the reason that the water source water source is secured.

⑹ 피고는 2006. 1. 10. 다시 낙동강유역환경청장에게 사전환경성검토재협의를 요청하였다가, 낙동강유역환경청장이 2006. 2. 7. 부동의 한다고 통보하자, 2006. 4. 27. 그 협의내용을 반영하지 않겠다고 통보하고, 같은 날 산업집적활성화 및 공장설립에 관한 법률(이하 ‘공장설립법’이라 한다) 제13조 에 따라 별지 기재 신청업체들의 공장설립승인신청을 승인하였다(이하 ‘이 사건 처분’이라 한다).

⑺ 한편, 낙동강유역환경청장은 2006. 4. 29. 피고의 협의내용 미반영 통보에 대하여 협의내용을 이행할 것을 요청하고, 2006. 6. 12. 경상남도지사에게 이 사건 처분의 취소 또는 정지조치를 요청하였다.

B. Location, etc. of the application site of this case

(1) On November 1, 2005, the Defendant designated one of the instant applications as a planned management area pursuant to Article 36 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

B. At the same time, the application of this case was not designated as a water source protection area. The application of this case had been designated as a water source protection area.

Article 22(1)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(3)(3)(2)(3)(3)(2)(3)(2)(3)(2)(3)(3)(3)(4)(2)(3)(2)(2)(3)(2)(3)(3)(3)(4)(2)(3)(2)(3)(3)(3)(4)(4)(4)(2)(3)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(3)(2)(3)(2)

(c) Construction, etc. of a water intake plant;

(1) On February 18, 1998, the Minister of Environment authorized the water supply business in the Yangsan Water Site Development Zone under the Ministry of Environment Notice No. 1998-11, and the main contents of the water supply business are as follows:

㈎ 사업명 : 양산물금택지개발지구 수도사업

㈏ 사업의 목적 : 양산물금택지개발사업지구 내 생활용수 공급

㈐ 사업의 개요 : 수원 낙동강 표류수, 시설용량 114,000㎥/일

㈑ 사업의 내용 : 취수시설 125,000㎥/일, 정수시설 114,000㎥/일

㈒ 사업시행지의 위치 : 취수장 양산시 물금면 물금리 654-1 일원, 정수장 및 배수지 양산시 물금 신도시 택지개발지구 내

㈓ 급수구역 : 양산물금택지개발사업지구 내

㈔ 급수인구 : 227,000명

㈕ 사업시행기간 : 1997년부터 2000년까지

㈖ 급수개시 예정일 : 2000년 12월

Sheshes to be installed according to the above water supply business will delay the project and will be completed around October 2007, as well as the water supply plant will be completed around November 2007, unlike the water supply plant plan.

Article 22(1) of the Act on the Protection and Improvement and Improvement and Protection and Development of Water Supply and Water Supply and Water Supply and Water Supply and Water Supply and Water Supply and Water Supply and Development Project for the development project of the Water Supply and Water Supply and Water Supply and Water Supply and Water Supply Project for the entire project area of 10,681,000 square meters (2,289,000 square meters).

D. Status of the plaintiffs

Plaintiff 78 and 79 currently reside in Yangsan-si, a development project area of the Yangsan-si, is supplied with tap water drawn from the Yangyang-si. However, upon the commencement of water supply at the Yangsan-si and the water purification plant, the water drawn from the relevant place is planned to be supplied as drinking water. The rest of the plaintiffs except the above plaintiffs are mostly in Busan Metropolitan City (Plaintiff 21 and 22 among them reside in the Yangsan-si, Yangsan-si, the water taken from the water intake place is supplied as drinking water.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Summary of the parties' arguments

The plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case is not the direct counter-party to the disposition of this case, and they are subject to direct and specific legal interests protected by the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, the Industrial Sites and Development Act, the Factory Establishment Act, the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the Water Management and Resident Support Act, etc., and the defendant asserts that there is no standing to sue to seek revocation of the disposition of this case since the interests of the plaintiffs are only anti-private interests, indirect or factual interests that are obtained as a result of the public interest protected.

B. Determination

(i) Criteria for determining standing to sue by a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition

Even if a third party is not the direct counter-party of an administrative disposition, if the legal interest protected by the administrative disposition is infringed by the law, the party shall be entitled to be judged by the propriety thereof by filing an administrative litigation seeking the revocation or nullification confirmation of the administrative disposition. Here, the legal interest refers to the case where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and the relevant laws and regulations, and if general, indirect, and abstract interests of the general public are generated as a result of the protection of public interest, there is no legal

Therefore, a third party, who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, filed a suit for cancellation on the ground that his environmental interest is infringed or is likely to be infringed upon by the administrative disposition, shall be deemed to have the standing to sue to prove that his environmental interest is the individual, direct and specific protected interest under the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations, i.e., the legal protected interest. However, in a case where the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations specify the scope of the right to influence that the environmental interest is likely to be infringed on by the business, such as the act done by the disposition, etc., it may be anticipated that the residents in the affected area will directly and seriously cause the environmental damage. Such environmental interest is the direct and specific interest that is individually protected by the individual, and barring special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the standing to sue is recognized by being recognized as the legal interest that is actually presumed to have been infringed or threatened to be infringed on the environmental interest, and the residents outside the affected area shall be recognized as the legal interest that is protected by the law.

D. standing to sue under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy

㈎ 원고들 주장

The plaintiffs claim that the establishment of the factory in this case is subject to prior examination of environmental impact under Article 25-2 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, and the plaintiffs are residents of the area subject to prior examination of environmental impact due to the factories to be established by the above development project. Therefore, the plaintiffs' environmental benefits are the interests directly and specifically protected by Article 25 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy.

㈏ 판단

Article 25 (Prior Examination of Environmental Impact) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy provides that "the head of the relevant administrative agency shall conduct a prior examination of environmental impact so that administrative plans and development projects affecting the environment may be formulated and implemented in an environmentally sustainable manner to maintain the appropriateness of environmental standards and preserve the natural environment," and Article 25-3 (Request for Examination of Environmental Impact) of the same Act provides that "the head of the relevant administrative agency shall request consultation about the prior examination of environmental impact to the Minister of Environment or the head of the competent regional environmental agency before granting permission, etc. in the case of a development project," and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the land of this case is subject to prior examination of environmental impact in a planned control area of at least 10,000 square meters under Article 6 subparagraph 2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which is a planned control area under the above Act and its area is at least 148,245 square meters." Thus,

Furthermore, Articles 25-2 and 25-3 of the Environmental Policy Act classifys the subject matters of prior examination of environmental impact into "administrative plan" and "development project" with respect to whether the plaintiffs are residents living in the area subject to prior examination of environmental impact, and Article 25-5 of the same Act stipulates that the opinion of interested parties, such as residents, experts, environmental organizations, and private organizations, should be heard only about "administrative plan" and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the use of land, such as the classification of use area into the area subject to prior examination of environmental impact pursuant to Article 25-4 (1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, the ecological and landscape conservation area, vegetation of the area subject to prior examination of environmental impact, the current pollution level and source of pollution in the area subject to prior examination of environmental impact, the current situation of the area subject to prior examination of environmental impact, the impact on the natural environment, impact on living environment, etc." The purport of each of the above provisions is that the plaintiffs' interests in the area of this case, namely, the area adjacent to the area of this case and the area of this case can be protected.

【Standingary Officer's License under Industrial Sites and Development Act

㈎ 원고들의 주장

Article 22 subparag. 8 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act (hereinafter “former Guidelines”) as publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation on May 6, 2005 pursuant to Article 40 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act and Article 36 of the Integrated Guidelines for Development of Industrial Complexes publicly notified by the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Construction and Transportation on December 26, 2005 (hereinafter “Integrated Guidelines”) stating that “the head of a Si/Gun shall not grant approval for the designation of an individual site within 15 kilometers from the water intake site towards the upper direction of the water intake site in cases where a water source protection area is not publicly notified, and where a water source protection area is not publicly notified, the interests of the Plaintiffs to directly acquire or directly acquire the same water intake or water intake from the water intake site to the water flow direction of the region within 15 kilometers from the water intake site and from the water flow direction to the water flow direction of the area within 2.4km through 27 kilometers from the date of application of this case.”

㈏ 판단

On May 6, 2005, Article 22 (1) 8 of the former Guidelines (Standards for Selection of Individual Factory Sites) provides that "the head of a Si/Gun shall not approve the designation of individual factory sites in an area within 15 kilometers of flow-distance upstream from the water collection place where no water source protection area has been publicly notified and an area within 1km of flow-distance toward the upstream of the water flow system shall not approve the designation of individual factory sites where the water source protection area has not been publicly notified." Meanwhile, Article 20 (Cases where an application for designation of a site may be filed) of the Guidelines provides that "where an application for designation of a site for individual factory may be filed pursuant to Article 41 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, it refers to cases where an application for designation of a site for individual factory is to be modified pursuant to the Act on Planning and Utilization of National Land in an area other than an industrial complex pursuant to the National Land Planning and Development Act, and there is no possibility to apply the above guidelines to the instant application.

In addition, Article 36 (Criteria for Selection of Individual Factory Sites) of the Integrated Guidelines announced on December 26, 2005 provides that "the head of a Si/Gun shall not approve the designation of individual factory sites in an area within 15 kilometers of flow-distance upstream from water intake head if a water source protection area has not been publicly notified and an area within one kilometer of flow-distance upstream from water intake head." However, Article 34 (Cases where a request for designation of site may be made) of the Guidelines provides that "An application for designation of site for individual factory establishment shall not be made in an area other than an industrial complex under Article 40 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act." Article 40 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act provides that "An application for designation of site for the establishment of a factory in an area other than an industrial complex shall not be made and publicly notified", Article 36 of the Integrated Guidelines provides that "an application for designation of site and development of the designated site shall not be made and publicly notified before the first enactment of the Guidelines, i.e., Article 201 of the Guidelines newly enacted and publicly notified.

x) Standing to sue under the Mountainous Districts Management Act

Since the plaintiffs claim that standing to sue should be recognized under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, this case's Mountainous Districts Management Act should be examined, and according to Article 13-2 (1) 2 of the Construction of Factory Act, in the case of construction of factory, permission for and reporting on conversion of mountainous districts under Articles 14 and 15 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and approval for change of use of land converted under Article 21 of the same Act, and Article 18 (1) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act provides that any disaster, such as outflow and collapse of soil and sand, shall not be likely to occur (Article 5), and Article 18 (1) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act shall not be seriously damaged (Article 6). Thus, the Mountainous Districts Management Act is also a law related to the disposition of this case. However, since there are no provisions that protect the plaintiffs' environmental interests in the Mountainous Districts Management Act as an individual, specific interest, the plaintiffs' interests protected under the Mountainous Districts Management Act are not recognized as standing to sue under the Mountainous Districts Management Act.

(v) standing to sue under the Act on the Water Management and Resident Support in the Nakdong River Basin;

Article 32 (A) of the Act on the Water Management and Resident Support in the Nakdong River Basin provides that "A waterworks business operator shall impose and collect a charge for water use from a final consumer who is supplied with raw water drawn from a public waters specified by Presidential Decree for the purpose of securing financial resources for resident support projects and water quality improvement projects, etc. and pay the charge for water use in accordance with the above provision. The plaintiffs are bound to pay the charge for water use pursuant to the above provision. Since the disposition of this case is in a situation that the water use of the plaintiffs is impossible or restricted due to the disposition of this case, the plaintiffs are bound to be recognized as standing to sue pursuant to the above Act. However, unless the above Act does not have a provision on the contents and intent of protecting the environmental interest of the plaintiffs individually and specifically, the standing to sue cannot be acknowledged solely on the basis

⑹ 국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률에 의한 원고적격

㈎ 관련법규인지 여부

According to Article 13-2(1) of the Act on the Establishment of Factories, when approval for factory construction is granted, permission for development activities under Article 56(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act shall be deemed to have been obtained, and according to attached Table 1 of attached Table 1 of Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, permission for development activities may be granted when there is no risk of environmental pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, soil pollution, noise, vibration, vibration, dust, etc. in the relevant area and its surrounding area due to development activities. Thus, the National Land Planning and Utilization Act shall be deemed to be the relevant laws related to the dispositions of this case.

㈏ 원고 78, 79의 원고 적격

Article 36 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act classify a special-purpose area into an urban area, control area, agricultural and forest area, and natural environment conservation area. Article 76(1) of the same Act stipulates that “The matters concerning restrictions on the use, type, size, etc. of buildings and other facilities within the special-purpose area designated under Article 36 shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 71(1)19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that buildings that may be constructed within a planned control area shall be prescribed in attached Table 20, while Article 76 of the same Act and attached Table 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate matters to be prescribed by municipal ordinance under Article 76 of the same Act and matters necessary for the enforcement thereof, and Article 5(2)6 of the Ordinance on the Designation of Buildingable Areas in the Gimhae Sea (Enforcement date of June 4, 2005) shall not be designated as an area within 10 km from the water intake site and an area within one km from the upstream direction of a factory construction site.”

The purport of the above provision is to protect, as a general public interest, the interests not to be harmed to life and health due to the pollution of water sources, but rather to protect as a common public interest, residents in an area where the water source pollutants are expected to suffer more direct and significant damage, namely, the residents in an area within 10km from the water intake to the upper upstream of the watershed, and an area within 1km from the upstream of the watershed, as a factory construction site, as a factory construction site, the residents’ environmental interests, directly and specifically, to which the watershed from the water intake site is supplied or expected to be supplied with drinking water. The application site of this case is located at approximately 2.7km from the watershed to start water supply around October 207 and around 2.7 kilometers from the watershed to be supplied with the watershed from the water intake site at the water intake point at that time. Thus, plaintiffs 78, and 79 expected to be entitled to standing to sue in accordance with the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

As to this, the defendant argued that the water intake does not fall under the water intake prescribed by the above Municipal Ordinance because the water intake was not operated at the time of the disposition in this case. However, the defendant argued that the construction of the water intake plant in this case to be done by the Minister of Environment in relation to the construction of the water intake plant was around December 200, and that the scheduled date for water supply according to the water supply development project in the water intake area was around February 18, 1998, and the specific environmental benefits to be protected by Article 5 (2) 6 of the above Kimhae-si Municipal Ordinance are not the interests of the residents who are in violation of the designation of the water intake plant in itself within 10 km from the water intake site to the upper direction of the water intake zone, but the interests of the residents who will be infringed by the construction of the factory after the designation. The construction of the factory in this case to be done after the completion of the water intake plant in this case seems to be after the commencement of the water intake plant in this case, and there is no reasonable need to treat the water intake plant in this case.

㈐ 물금취수장으로부터 식수를 공급받는 원고들의 원고적격

The plaintiffs, except the plaintiffs 78 and 79, who are supplied with drinking water from the water intake place, that is, the water intake place, are located below 2.4 km from the water intake place, and the factory to be established in the application site of this case is located outside the factory location prohibition area as prescribed by the above Municipal Ordinance. However, in order to prevent the inflow of the water at the time of the construction of this case, the river water runs away from the upstream of the water intake place, and (2) if the water flow is spread more than before than before due to the increase in the discharge load after the construction of this case, if the water quality of the water intake place becomes worse due to the increase in non-point pollution sources after the construction of this case, their health and environmental interests are infringed or are likely to be infringed due to the disposition of this case, and therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the above plaintiffs' assertion that the above plaintiffs' testimony of this case is likely to infringe on the health and environmental interests of the non-party 1 and the above plaintiffs' testimony of this case is not sufficient to be acknowledged.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff 78 and 79's assertion

The above plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case was illegal as follows and sought the revocation of the disposition of this case.

(i) argument that there are insufficient procedures for advance examination of environmental impact.

Article 25-3 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy and attached Table 2 of Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act with respect to the application for approval of factory construction of this case, the defendant requested the head of the Nakdong River basin environmental office to examine the environmental impact, and then the disposition of this case was taken prior to the completion of the procedures for examination of environmental impact. Thus, the disposition of this case is in violation of Article 27 (1) of the same Act, which provides

Dr. 2. Grounds for non-establishment of unit planning

The instant disposition is approved of an application for the establishment of a factory containing development activities of not less than 30,00§³, and thus, the instant disposition was conducted without implementing the Class II district unit plan even though it should be established and promoted. Therefore, it violates Article 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 55 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

【Objection to avoid Environmental Impact Assessment” is an evasion of law

The establishment of a factory under the provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 13 of the Factory Establishment Act is subject to environmental impact assessment under Article 4(3) of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, Etc. and Article 2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The applicant companies, including the defendant joining the defendant, filed an application for factory construction by reducing the factory area into 148,245 square meters to avoid environmental trend assessment, and the defendant approved it. This is an evasion of law to avoid environmental impact assessment.

Applicant that establishment of a factory cannot be approved because it is an area corresponding to the water source protection area.

Despite the fact that the application of this case is to be designated as a water source protection area pursuant to Article 7 of the Act on Water Management and Resident Support in the Nakdong River Basin, the application of this case is not designated as a water source protection area. Thus, the application of this case should be managed in accordance with the water source protection area, and therefore, it is illegal to approve the establishment of a factory in an area where the factory can not be established.

(v)a violation of the Guidelines for Industrial Location Development;

The instant disposition violates Article 22 subparagraph 8 of the Industrial Location Development Guidelines publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation on May 6, 2005 pursuant to Article 40 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, or Article 36 of the Integrated Guidelines for Development of Industrial Complexes publicly notified by the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Environment on December 26, 2005, Article 205-173 of the Ministry of Environment and Article 205-437 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and Article 205-437 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation.

⑹ 계획관리지역 안에서 건축할 수 없는 공장의 설립을 승인하였다는 주장

The defendant approved the establishment of a factory that the non-party 5 ( non-party 6 corporation) and the non-party 7 (non-party 8 corporation) among the applicants stated in the attached Form, falls under the category of business as specified in subparagraph 2 (k) of attached Table 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and thus cannot be constructed within the planned management area. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful only for

⑺ 김해시 공장건축 가능지역 지정에 관한 조례 위반 주장

The disposition of this case is against Article 5 (2) 6 of the Ordinance on the Designation of Areas Eligible for the Construction of Kim Sea Factory, which provides that "where a water source protection area has not been publicly announced, the Mayor/Do Governor shall not designate an area within 10km from the water intake place towards the upper stream of the water appropriation and an area within 1km from the downstream direction as a factory construction site."

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination of the absence of procedures for advance examination of environmental impact

① On November 3, 2005, the Defendant requested a prior examination of environmental impact on the application for approval of factory construction of this case to the head of a basin environmental office in the Nakdong River basin, but requested a re-consultation on defects. ② The Defendant again requested a re-consultation on January 5, 2006 when the Nakdong River basin environmental office in the Nakdong River basin in the Nakdong River basin in the response that it is not desirable to the above re-consultation, but notified that it would not reflect the contents of consultation on April 27, 2006 when the Nakdong River basin basin environmental office in the response that it would not consent to the above re-consultation on February 7, 2006, the Defendant notified that it would not reflect the contents of consultation on the prior examination of environmental impact on the head of the competent administrative agency or the head of the regional environmental office before giving permission, etc. under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, it does not mean that the Defendant’s response to consultation on the prior examination of environmental impact on the head of the competent administrative agency should not be reflected in the content of consultation.

D. Judgment on the non-establishment of Class B district unit planning

Article 55 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that "development activities in a management area shall be less than 30,000 square meters," and Article 55 (4) of the same Act provides that "if a development is conducted adjacent to a management area, such area shall be deemed as one development act, and such area shall be calculated as a single development act," and Article 55 (3) of the same Act provides that "in the case of development activities conducted within the scope of households and lots prescribed by a district unit plan, the area of the site of the factory of this case shall not exceed 30,00 square meters individually, but the area of the factory of this case does not exceed 148,245 square meters in total, as seen earlier, in principle, development activities shall not be permitted unless a Class 2 district unit plan as prescribed by Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is established with respect to a lot of the application of this case.

However, Article 55 (5) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that "Where access roads to the land subject to development activities are connected to roads (general national roads, Special Metropolitan City roads, Metropolitan City roads, local roads, local roads, Do roads, Gun roads, Gu roads) under Article 11 (4) of the Road Act, excluding major arterial roads or national expressways with a width of not less than 8, and are directly connected to roads (general national roads, Special Metropolitan City roads, Metropolitan City roads, Metropolitan City roads, Do roads, Gun roads, and Gu roads), that is, where developed adjacent to a management area, it shall be deemed as one development act and shall not be applicable to the calculation of the area thereof." In full view of the purport of arguments in evidence No. 21 of the above Enforcement Decree, the applicant company mentioned in the attached Table shall be deemed as the one development act and shall not apply to the calculation of the area thereof, after obtaining permission from the defendant on December 16, 2005, from the defendant on which the application in this case was made.

【Judgment on the Evasion of Law for avoiding Environmental Impact Assessment

The reason that the applicant company stated in the attached Form applied for the construction of a factory with a little of 148,245 square meters than the area subject to environmental impact assessment, which is less than 150,000 square meters in the area subject to environmental impact assessment, cannot be readily concluded that he applied for the construction of a factory by reducing the size of the factory to avoid environmental impact assessment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, this part of the claim is without merit.

x) Judgment on the assertion that the establishment of a factory cannot be approved because it is an area corresponding to the water source protection area.

Since the site of this case was not designated as a water source protection area, it cannot be said that it should be managed equally with the water source protection area, and the proviso of Article 7 of the Act on Water Management and Resident Support in the Nakdong River Basin stipulates that "the annual average water quality may not be designated as a water source protection area with respect to the watershed in a river (referring to a river that flows directly into a river or a lake and marsh where water intake facilities are installed) whose water quality is higher than the watershed in a water source protection area, and in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of evidence evidence evidence No. 132, it can be recognized that the annual average water quality of small river was lower than the watershed in a water source protection area. Thus, the argument that the land of this case

(v)decision on the violation of the Guidelines for Industrial Location Development;

Pursuant to Article 40 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, Article 22 subparagraph 8 of the Industrial Location Development Guidelines publicly announced by the Minister of Construction and Transportation on May 6, 2005 by Article 205-104 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and Article 36 of the Integrated Guidelines for Development of Industrial Complexes publicly announced by the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Environment on December 26, 2005 by Article 205-17 of the Ministry of Environment and the Minister of Construction and Transportation by Article 205-437 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation do not apply to the application for the establishment of the instant case. Therefore, the above plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit without

⑹ 계획관리지역 안에서 건축할 수 없는 공장의 설립을 승인하였다는 주장에 대한 판단

Article 71 (1) 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19647 of Aug. 17, 2006) provides that "any building that can be constructed within a planned management area shall be the building stipulated in attached Table 20." Subparagraph 2 (j) of attached Table 20 provides that "any building that can be continuously used for manufacturing, processing (including chloe, gy, gying, drying, drying, drying, printing, etc.) or repair shall be located within the area publicly notified by the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, a Mayor, or the head of a Gun as an area with a size of at least 15,00 square meters in a factory among factories referred to in subparagraph 13 of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, which is located within the area publicly notified as an area where the construction of a factory is possible, and it shall not be stored or processed by water or chemical medicine, and there is no reason to recognize that it is a lack of approval for the plaintiffs or non-party 2."

⑺ 김해시 공장건축가능지역 지정에 관한 조례 위반 주장에 대한 판단

Article 5 (2) 6 of the Ordinance on the Designation of Gimhae Factory Construction Areas within 10 km from the water intake point in which Plaintiff 78 and 79 will take place at a point where approximately 2.7 km from the water intake point in which he will take advantage of the water supply of the raw water from the water intake point, and the fact that the application of this case is located at a point where approximately 2.7 km from the water intake point above the water flow point in which he will take advantage of the water supply of the water flow, is in violation of the above Ordinance, and that Article 5 (2) 6 of the Ordinance on the Designation of the Land Planning and Utilization Act provides for the matters to be prescribed by the Ordinance and the matters necessary for the enforcement thereof, and that Article 5 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "if the water supply source protection area has not been publicly notified, the Mayor/Do governor shall not designate an area within 10 km from the water intake point as a factory construction area, and that is within one km from the downstream direction above Ordinance.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the claims of this case, the claims of plaintiffs 78 and 79 are accepted on the grounds of their reasoning, and all of their claims are dismissed because they cannot be deemed to have a legal interest to seek the revocation of the disposition of this case. The part against plaintiffs 78 and 79 in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the plaintiffs 78 and 79 is unfair in conclusion, and the part against the remaining plaintiffs is legitimate. Thus, the appeal of the plaintiffs 78, 79 and the part against the plaintiffs 78, 79 in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted, and the above plaintiffs' claims shall be revoked among the judgment of the court of first instance and the part against the plaintiffs 78,79 in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted

[Attachment of List of Plaintiffs and List of Companies for Approval of Establishment]

Judges Kim Shin (Presiding Judge)