1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The defendant, on July 19, 2007, determined a road zone as follows in accordance with Article 25 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008) and publicly notified it pursuant to Article 25 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No.8852 of Feb. 29, 2008)

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). The ground for the original alteration of the general national highway C " - the closing point - the closing point: D- the closing point in Gangwon-do : the establishment of the new road in the E7.86 line 4 line at Samyang-do, Gangwon-do, the fact that there is no dispute (based on recognition), the entry of Gap evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the portion indicated as FF company in the environmental impact assessment report of the instant disposition is not the actual F company, but the F company’s environmental impact assessment was not conducted at all. Therefore, the instant disposition lacking environmental impact assessment is null and void.

B. In the event that a project subject to environmental impact assessment under the relevant legal principles is approved without such environmental impact assessment, such disposition is unlawful.

However, if such procedure was completed, the content of the environmental impact assessment is somewhat insufficient.

Even if the degree of the defect is insufficient to achieve the legislative purport of the environmental impact assessment system, and it is not different from the failure to conduct the environmental impact assessment, the defect is merely a single element to determine whether there is a deviation or abuse of discretionary power in the pertinent approval or other disposition, and the relevant approval or other disposition is not illegal as a matter of course due to the defect.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du330 Decided March 16, 2006). C.

Facts of recognition

Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 13, 14 (including numbers), the result of the verification by this court, and