[1] The case holding that an execution plan for electric source development business for which approval was applied prior to the implementation of the Electric Source Development Promotion Act, which stipulates procedures for hearing opinions of residents, does not require approval

[2] In a case where the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy approves an execution plan for electric power resource development business pursuant to the former Act on Special Cases concerning Electric Power Resource Development, whether consultation with the competent administrative agency about farmland conversion

[3] The case holding that even if there are some defects in the environmental impact assessment on the electric source development business, the degree of such defects cannot be deemed to reach the extent that the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system could not be achieved

[4] Whether the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy shall consider the safety of the business area when he approves the electric source development business under the Electric Source Development Promotion Act (affirmative with qualification)

[5] The case holding that there were no errors of deviation from or abuse of discretion in the disposition of approval of execution plan for electric power resource development business, on the grounds that it is difficult to view that there is an objective obvious error in determining the necessity of electric

[1] The case holding that since Article 5-2 (1) and (2) of the Electric Source Development Promotion Act intends to obtain approval of the execution plan for electric source development business under the provisions of Article 5 of the same Act, the electric source developer shall hear opinions of residents and experts before the application for approval, and when the opinions of hearing residents are deemed reasonable, the execution plan should be reflected in the execution plan; however, the supplementary provisions of Article 1 (proviso), Article 2 (1) and (2) of the same Act shall enter into force one year after the promulgation of the amended provisions of Article 5-2 and the execution plan for which the application for approval was filed under the previous provisions shall be governed by the previous provisions at the time of the enforcement of the same Act, the procedure for hearing opinions is not required for the execution plan for electric source development business

[2] As prescribed by Article 5 (4) of the former Special Cases concerning Electric Source Development Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy, Act No. 7016 of Dec. 30, 2003), in a case where the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy has granted approval of an execution plan for electric source development business through procedures such as hearing opinions of the competent Metropolitan City Mayor, consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and submission of measures plan by the electric source developer including the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, deliberation by the Electric Source Development Promotion Committee, etc., it shall not be deemed that consultation on the diversion of farmland is necessarily required, since it is deemed that permission for diversion of farmland under Article 36 of the Farmland

[3] The case holding that even if an electric power resource developer limits the participation and access of some residents in an explanatory meeting and a public hearing for the preparation of an environmental impact assessment report on the electric power resource development business, or the public hearing procedure has not been implemented normally due to the difference of participating residents, considering the process of gathering opinions from local residents who have no choice but to conflict with interests in the nuclear power generation business and scientific and technical characteristics that have limitations in terms of the contents of environmental impact assessment, it cannot be deemed that the degree of insolvency does not lead to the degree that it is impossible to achieve the legislative purport of the environmental impact assessment system

[4] Considering that prior approval of the project area is deemed effective by the Minister of Science and Technology or the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy with the approval of the implementation plan, the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy shall also take into account the cases where there is an objective apparent safety defect in the project plan at the stage of approval of the implementation plan or where it is anticipated to do so, and if approval is granted without reaching it, it may be deemed that there is an abuse of discretion.

[5] The case holding that the suitability, necessity, efficiency, etc. for the stabilization of the supply and demand of electricity for the electric power resource development business cannot be viewed as an unlawful act of deviating from or abusing discretion in the disposition of approval of execution plan for the electric power resource development business, on the ground that it is difficult to view that there is an objective obvious error in determining the necessity of electric power resource development business, in light of the fact that it is difficult to view that there is an objective error in determining the necessity of electric power resource development business, etc., in light of the fact that it should be predicted and decided from an expert perspective in view of future energy supply and demand conditions, industrial structure changes, and demand for power supply and demand

[1] Article 5-2 of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act, Articles 1 and 2 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 7016 of Dec. 30, 2003) / [2] Articles 5 (4), 6, 5 (4), and 6 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Electric Power Source Development (amended by Act No. 7016 of Dec. 30, 2003) / [3] Articles 5 and 6 of the former Act on Assessment of Impacts of Environmental, Traffic, Disasters, Etc. (amended by Act No. 7020 of Dec. 30, 2003) / [4] Article 5 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Electric Power Source Development (amended by Act No. 7016 of Dec. 30, 2003), Article 5 and Article 6 (1) of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act, Article 11 of the Atomic Energy Development Promotion Act, Article 207 subparagraph 37 of the former Administrative Litigation Act

Lee Han-san and 95 others (Law Firm Shinsung, Attorney Kang Dong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Lee Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Korea Telecommunication Co., Ltd. (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Lee Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

February 23, 2006

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The approval of execution plan for electric power resource development business rendered by the defendant to the intervenor assisting the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "participating") on January 11, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition and the status of the plaintiffs

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments in each entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 3, evidence 5, evidence 1 to 13, evidence 7-1 to 13, evidence 8, evidence 9-1 and evidence 9-2.

A. Under the Act on the Promotion of the Reorganization of Electric Power Industry, which was enacted on December 23, 200, the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Electric Power Corporation”) applied for the designation and announcement of an prearranged zone as an electric power resource development project pursuant to the long-term electric power supply and demand plan of the Government on June 17, 1996, the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Electric Power Corporation”) designated and announced the said project zone as a prearranged zone for electric power resource development project, following consultation with the relevant administrative agency on December 19, 197 and deliberation by the Electric Power Resource Development Promotion Committee.

B. On January 11, 1999 and April 2, 2001, Korea War entrusted the purchase of land and the compensation business necessary for the instant project to Ulsan-gun. On January 13, 2000, the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy announced that the instant electric power resource development business was fully completed from January 13, 200 to September 2009, the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy announced that the instant electric power resource development business was completed in accordance with the above long-term power supply and demand plan on August 25, 200.

C. On January 29, 2002, the Intervenor filed an application with the Defendant for approval of an execution plan for electric source development business with the following contents pursuant to Article 5(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Electric Source Development (amended by Act No. 7016, Dec. 30, 2003) (hereinafter “instant application”).

○ Business Name: Reported Nuclear Energy Construction Project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Project”).

○ Project Operator: Intervenor

The purpose of the ○ business: the construction of 1 and 2 units of nuclear energy for the purpose of completing the construction on December 2, 2009 and October 2010 in accordance with the 5th long-term power supply and demand plan of the government, thereby stabilizing the supply of electricity.

○ 사업개요 : 100만 ㎾급 원자력발전시설 2기 및 부속장비

PWR type (PWR)

○ Project implementation period: from January 2005 to October 2010 (70 months)

○ Location and area of the project area

- - Of cotton

Main Area: The Head of the Busan District Office, the Head of the District in Busan District and the Head of the Seolan-gun in Ulsan District, the Head of the District in Busan District, the Head of the District in S

Housing site: Docheon-ri, Busan Gun, Busan Gun;

- Area: 2,758,112 square meters

Main land: 2,694.625 square meters (2,480,625 square meters of land and 214,000 square meters of reclaimed land)

Housing site: 63,487 square meters

D. On January 13, 2005, the Defendant approved the instant application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on January 13, 2005 through the hearing of opinions of the competent Metropolitan City Mayors, the consultation with the heads of related central administrative agencies, the submission of the Intervenor’s plan for measures against them, the deliberation by the Electric Source Development Business Promotion Committee, etc., and announced the said implementation plan under Article 205-5 of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy’s notification

E. The Plaintiffs are residents of the head of the Busan District in the vicinity of the instant project zone, and each of the residents of the head of the Busan District, U.S., U.S., U.S., and U.S., U.S., U.S..

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The disposition of this case shall be revoked on the following grounds of illegality:

(1) An intervenor did not collect opinions from residents and relevant experts as prescribed in Article 5-2 of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act before filing the instant application, and did not take procedures to reflect the implementation plan.

(2) The competent administrative agency of the instant project area did not undergo a farmland diversion consultation with the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor.

(3) Environmental impact assessment is inadequate in the following respect.

(A) The Intervenor filed the instant application via formal environmental impact assessment, although the nuclear power plant’s operating in-depth drainage method and the resolution of the problems of marine ecosystems or the formulation of its countermeasures are included in the contents of consultation with the Ministry of Environment.

(B) The Defendant did not present a clear basis for the effect that the discharge of thermal effluents from the above in-depth discharge method is less than that of the existing in-depth discharge method and does not affect the neighboring waters, or did not establish measures for the effect thereof.

(C) The intervenor did not take procedures for collecting residents’ opinions at the time of preparing the environmental impact assessment report.

(4) The instant project zone is already in operation of four nuclear power plants in its neighborhood, and its safety cannot be ensured due to the existence of active layers sufficiently anticipated to be damaged by earthquakes or tidal waves.

(5) Considering the supply and demand situation of Korea and appropriate installation ratio, the instant project is unnecessary.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

C. Facts relationship

The following facts are acknowledged when adding up the descriptions of Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 10-1 to 3, Eul evidence 11, 12, Gap evidence 14-1, 2, Gap 15-1 to 5, Gap 21, Eul evidence 22, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 10-1 to 16, Eul evidence 11-3, Eul evidence 12-1 to 15, Eul evidence 15-1 to 3, Eul evidence 16-1 to 4, and Eul evidence 17:

(1) Hearing of opinions and consultation on the diversion of farmland by the competent Metropolitan City Mayor

(A) On April 4, 2002, the Mayor of Ulsan Metropolitan City and the Mayor of Ulsan Metropolitan City presented their opinions to each of the Defendant on the 11st of the same month. Among the opinions presented by the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor, the content that “Sari-ri 996 and 490 parcels, which are the area where the project is planned, should be implemented after prior consultation, because they are subject to farmland diversion consultation under Article 36(1) of the Farmland Act and Article 72 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.”

(B) On April 12, 2004, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor did not reply to the request for consultation on the diversion of farmland for the Defendant’s project area of this case with the following purport: “When construction works are commenced with the approval of the implementation plan in the present situation, it would be difficult to use the farmland in question for the purpose of exclusive use, and it would be difficult to use the farmland in question if it is inevitable to promote the national project, but if it is inevitable to promote it as a national project, it must be promoted after going through the objective verification process

(2) Preparation of environmental impact assessment reports and details of consultation with the Minister of Environment

(A) On September 8, 2001, the intervenor submitted a draft environmental impact assessment report on the project of this case to the head of the plane captain, and requested the head of the plane captain to make a public announcement including matters concerning the holding of a resident presentation session at the time of the public inspection of the draft, and the head of the plane captain had the above draft available for public inspection from September 14 to November 2 of the same year. The intervenor followed a presentation session on the draft at the head of the Eup/Myeon office and the head of the plane office at the head of the Dong-gun Eup/Myeon office on September 19 of the same year, and on December 6 of the same year, the first public hearing on the draft was held by the head of the Dong-gun, the head of the Dong-gun, the head of the Dong-gun, the head of the Dong-gun, and submitted it to the defendant on February 2, 2002.

(B) On February 4, 2002, the Defendant requested the Minister of Environment to consult on the environmental impact assessment submitted by the Intervenor to the Minister of Environment. However, on February 18, 2002, the Minister of Environment asserted that the above public hearing held by the Intervenor is invalid on the grounds of the business operator’s restriction on participation and the restriction on access to the public hearing site, etc., and confirmed that local residents were invalid, and the Ministry of Environment also confirmed that there was a significant portion of the arguments among the local residents, he/she again held a public hearing to prepare the environmental impact assessment report reflecting the results, and rejected

(C) On March 12, 2002, the intervenor held a second public hearing at the Nuclear Education Center located in Ulsan-gun on March 12, 2002, and again submitted an environmental impact assessment to the Minister of Environment through the defendant on the 20th of the same month, but the Minister of Environment returned the date, place, etc. of the public hearing to the Minister of Environment on the ground that there was no official prior consultation

(D) On April 30, 2002, the intervenor held a third public hearing at the Seognam-gun Office of Ulsan-gun on April 30, 2002, but the head of the Seoan-gun in Busan-gun requested the residents to present their opinions in writing as the head of the Dong-gun in Busan-gun appears to have different opinions on the place of the public hearing. Accordingly, the intervenor submitted an environmental impact assessment report reflecting the opinions submitted by the residents in writing to the defendant. On May 16, 2002, the defendant again requested the Minister of Environment

(E) On July 29, 2002, the Minister of Environment requested the supplementation of the contents of the additional public hearing and the environmental impact assessment to the applicant. On August 16, 2002, the intervenor held the fourth public hearing at the office of the head of the Busan Gun/Eup/Myeon in the captain of Busan Gun, and submitted an environmental impact assessment to the Defendant, which includes the contents of the fourth public hearing and the opinions on the supplementary items requested by the Minister of Environment, and the Defendant submitted the above supplementary materials to the Minister of Environment on October 25 of the same year.

(f) However, on December 16, 2002, the Minister of Environment requested the Defendant to supplement the following items: (a) whether a public hearing is held by the residents of the Ulsan-gun; (b) the contents and results of the consultation with the ministries and agencies related to reclamation; (c) the results of consultation with Ulsan Metropolitan City on the relocation of rivers; (d) the commencement and completion time of construction in-depth drainage; and (e) the analysis of causes for the increase in red tide tons; and (e) on July 31, 2003, the Minister of Environment requested the Defendant to supplement additional items, such as geographical and geological features, land use, noise impact and reduction measures at the time of construction or use in the instant company housing area. On December 27, 2002, the Intervenor again submitted an environmental impact assessment report, including review opinions on the application mentioned therein and review opinions on the request for supplementation and supplementation by the Minister of Environment; and (b) the Intervenor did not return the additional items to the Minister of Environment through the Minister of Environment for the Ministry of Environment.

(G) On September 30, 2003, the Minister of Environment requested the Defendant to supplement the third party as the model used to forecast the proliferation of thermal effluents due to in-depth drainage is insufficient, and the Intervenor may anticipate changes in the species of the production and appearance of the species within the limited range in the vicinity of the drainage hole due to the thermal effluents of this case. However, in other areas, the impact of the area would be insignificant, and the impact of the emission of the thermal effluents can be minimized due to in-depth drainage construction, and the extent of the proliferation of the thermal effluents would be sufficiently reduced due to the optimalization of the location of the discharge outlet, and the Defendant submitted an environmental impact assessment (third supplementary data) to the Defendant on November 11 of the same year, stating that additional reduction measures would be not taken into account.

(h) Ultimately, on January 14, 2004, the Minister of Environment sent to the Defendant the contents of the consultation that additional review of the length of the drainage tunnel, the depth of the final discharge outlet, the discharge outlet, and the measures to minimize the disturbance on the seabed and the thermal effluents should actively establish measures to reduce the impact on the marine ecosystem. The Intervenor submitted a business plan regarding the contents of the consultation of environmental impact assessment to the Defendant on January 20, 204.

(3) Safety of the instant project area

(A) Within 8 km in the radius of the instant project area, the primary luminous layer, known as one source of the two ridges, is in transit, and the four nuclear reactors and four nuclear power plants are already in operation in the vicinity of the two storys.

(B) Some of domestic geological scholars have raised controversy over the activities of the two-storys in the 1990s, and the Korea Resource Research Institute, from June 1995 to June 30, 1998, conducted an investigation into the two-storys, and on June 30, 1998, the two-storys, the main floor of which was the two-storys, were not the active storys, but within the range of the earthquake probability exceeded the design standards of the U.S. Atomic Energy Regulation Commission, as a result of the evaluation of the positive earthquake disasters, including those within the range of the earthquake probability exceeded the design standards of the U.S. Commission. as a result of the evaluation of the positive earthquake disasters. However, there was a point of view by domestic geological scholars and media reports on these factors.

(C) At around 2004, the Intervenor confirmed that there was a sunlighted layer in the vicinity of the instant project zone in order to examine the construction permit of the instant project, and conducted an additional precise examination to find out the characteristics of the sunlighted layers. On May 2004, the Intervenor concluded that the development of the fourth floor that is highly likely to cause earthquakes is not weak or distributed, and that it can only be seen as a single story movement that was conducted before 120,000, without any clear evidence that there was a fourth floor movement in the instant project area, depending on the survey area.

(D) Based on the above Intervenor’s preliminary stability analysis report and the result of the further precision examination, the Commission, which is under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, assessed that the first floor is not an active single story, and that there was no geological and seismic phenomenon that may cause harm to the safety of nuclear power in the instant project area and its surrounding areas, but there was an opinion of review that it would re-examine the validity of the results of the geological safety survey on the site through the field inspection at the time of the site excavation, submitted the instant construction permission proposal on June 28, 2005, and the Minister of Science and Technology permitted the construction of the instant project on the same day.

(d) Electricity supply and demand plans by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy;

(A) The Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy, on January 13, 200, entered into the fifth long-term electric power supply and demand plan based on various factors and prospects such as conditions of domestic and overseas energy supply and demand, continuous growth of electric power demand, aggravation of conditions of expansion of electric facilities, strengthening of domestic and overseas environmental regulations, strengthening of the electric utility industry restructuring and the introduction of competition systems. This long-term electric power supply and demand plan includes a prospect that the maximum demand for electricity will increase by 4.3% per annum on an average of 4.3% per annum based on the government planning (short-term) and the Korea Development Institute (KDI). The instant project also includes the project in the plan for construction of power facilities.

(B) Meanwhile, with the amendment of the Electric Utility Act on December 23, 2000, the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy established and publicly announced a master plan for the supply and demand of the first electric power on August 17, 2002. The basic plan for the supply and demand of the electric power includes the prospects that the maximum demand of 3.4% per annum average from 2001 to 2015 will increase by 4.9% per annum average by 2015 based on the opinion of the Korea Development Institute that the domestic economic growth rate from 201 to 2015 would increase by 3.4% per annum average by 2015.

(C) In addition, the second electric power supply and demand plan that the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy determines and publicly notifies around December 2004 includes a total of 2.7% per annum by 2017; the maximum electricity consumption ratio by 16% by 2006 to 17% by 2006; and the equipment coverage ratio by 20% by 20% after 207.

(D) However, among scholars, there are cases where they expressed their opinions that the construction of nuclear power plants requiring excessive initial costs would not be feasible and that the supply-oriented electric power supply-oriented electric power supply-oriented electric power supply plan would hinder the development of alternative energy, on the premise that the installation ratio of electric power policies for the second generation-oriented electric power supply-demand plan would be an appropriate level between 10% and 15%, and economic growth would continue at a level between 3% and 4% per annum.

(d) Markets:

(1) Determination as to the assertion of the above A. (1)

(A) Article 5-2(1) and (2) of the Electric Source Development Promotion Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that an electric source developer shall hear opinions of residents, experts, etc. prior to the application for approval where the electric source developer wishes to obtain the approval of an execution plan under Article 5 of the same Act, and where the opinions of hearing residents, etc. are deemed reasonable, the electric source developer shall reflect them in the implementation plan. However, the proviso of Article 1, Article 2(1) and (2) of the Addenda of the same Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 5-2 shall enter into force one year after the date of its promulgation, and the implementation plan for which the application for the approval is filed under the previous provisions at the time of the enforcement of the same Act shall be governed by the previous provisions. However, the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Electric Source Development (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”) does not

(B) In full view of the provisions of the relevant laws and regulations and the facts of Finin as seen above, the instant application was filed on January 29, 2002, prior to the enforcement of the amended Promotion Act, and thus, there is no provision that the relevant provisions of the previous Act on Special Cases apply, and in such a case, there is no compulsory provision that the residents’ opinions should be heard. Therefore, such procedure cannot

(C) Meanwhile, according to the above evidence, the intervenor held a public hearing, etc. more than five times at the request of the Minister of Environment, as seen above, and the situation where the residents failed to smoothly proceed due to the residents’ consensus or interference in the process is recognized. However, even if the situation where residents’ opinions were to be reflected in the environmental impact assessment report, it may be deemed that the intervenor conducted the process of gathering opinions from residents, etc., by reflecting the opinions submitted by residents in the environmental impact assessment report.

(D) Therefore, this part of the argument is without merit.

(2) Determination as to the assertion of the above A. (2)

(A) Article 5(4) of the Special Act on the Settlement of Farmland provides that when a defendant intends to grant approval of an execution plan under paragraph (1) of the same Article, he shall hear the opinion of the Metropolitan City Mayor having jurisdiction over the electric source development business area in question in advance and undergo deliberation by the Committee after consultation with the head of the relevant central administrative agency. Article 6(1) of the same Act and Article 6(1) of the Promotion Act provides that when an electric source developer obtains approval of an execution plan under Article 5, he shall be deemed to have obtained permission for diversion of farmland under Article 36 of the Farmland Act (Article 10). Meanwhile, Article 36(1) and (2) of the Farmland Act provides that a person who intends to divert farmland shall, in principle, obtain permission for diversion of farmland from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and that consultation on diversion of farmland shall be required if farmland is included in the area designated and decided by the

(B) In full view of these relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the facts related to livingin under paragraphs (1) and (1) of the same Article, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor presented a reply to the effect that in the process of hearing opinions with respect to the Defendant’s competent Metropolitan City Mayors based on Article 5(4) of the Act on Special Cases, the U.S. Metropolitan City Mayor submitted the opinion that the area located in Ulsan-gun in the instant project area is subject to farmland diversion consultation and that the Defendant’s request for farmland diversion consultation is not exclusive use. However, as long as the Defendant issued the instant disposition through the procedure of hearing the opinions of the competent Metropolitan City Mayor, consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, submission of the Intervenor’s action plan, deliberation by the Electric Power Resource Development Promotion Committee, etc., it cannot be deemed that consultation on farmland diversion is necessarily required, as it is deemed to have been permitted under Article 36 of the Farmland Act under the relevant provisions

(C) Therefore, despite the negative expression of opinion on farmland diversion by the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor, the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful. Therefore, the assertion on this cannot be justified.

(3) Determination as to the assertion of the above A. (3)

(A) Article 4 of the former Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, Etc. (amended by Act No. 7020 of Dec. 30, 2003) provides that an energy development project identical to the project in this case shall be subject to an impact assessment project. Article 6 of the same Act provides that, in preparing an assessment statement, an explanatory meeting or public hearing shall be held to hear the opinions of residents in the area where the implementation of the project is affected by the implementation of the project, and shall be included in the assessment statement, and a public hearing shall be held at the request of residents within the scope prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

(B) If a disposition on a project subject to environmental impact assessment was conducted through the process of environmental impact assessment, even if the content of the environmental impact assessment is somewhat inadequate, the degree of the defect is so impossible to achieve the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system, and so long as it is not different from the failure to conduct environmental impact assessment, the defect is merely one element of determining whether there was a deviation or abuse of discretion in the pertinent approval disposition, etc., and the relevant approval disposition is not deemed unlawful as a matter of course due to the defect (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du9902, Jun. 29, 2001).

(C) Comprehensively taking into account the details of such relevant laws and regulations and legal principles as seen above, the health team. According to the above evidence, the intervenor's participation in and access to the briefing sessions and public hearings for the preparation of the environmental impact assessment report on the project of this case does not normally proceed with the public hearing procedures due to the opinions of the participants, etc., and the contents of the final environmental impact assessment do not include the contents of the consultation to be additionally formulated by the Minister of Environment, such as the optimal conditions embodied in the facilities for in-depth drainage method and the methods for minimizing submarine disturbance. However, considering the fact that the process of gathering opinions of local residents who have no choice but to conflict with interests in nuclear power generation projects and the scientific and technological characteristics with limitations in light of the contents of the consultation with the Minister of Environment, the above environmental impact assessment report contains five-time public hearings and public hearings in the process of consultation with the Minister of Environment, and the result of the public hearings and public hearings, etc. The Minister of Environment has no choice but to conclude that the above contents of the written environmental impact assessment report include the contents of the written environmental impact assessment report in detail and its implementation.

(D) Therefore, this part of the assertion is without merit.

(4) Determination as to the assertion of the above A. (4)

(A) Article 5(3)7 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Construction of a Nuclear Power Reactor and related facility, Article 15(3)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that matters concerning the site shall be included in an approved implementation plan in the case of construction of a nuclear power reactor and related facility, and Article 6(1) of the same Act and the Promotion Act provide that when an electric power resource developer obtains approval of an implementation plan under Article 5, a site prior approval under Article 11(3) of the Atomic Energy Act shall be deemed to have been granted (Article 11(3) and (5) of the same Act. Meanwhile, Article 11(3) and (5) of the Atomic Energy Act provides that where a person who intends to construct a nuclear power reactor and related facility files an application for prior approval before applying for a construction permit, the Minister of Science and Technology may grant approval after examination. In this case, a person who intends to obtain prior approval shall submit an application for prior approval to the Minister of Science and Technology along with a written application for approval for inspection of environmental impact assessment report and other related facility.

(B) In light of such relevant laws and regulations, considering the fact that prior approval on a project area is deemed effective by the Minister of Science and Technology or by the approval of the Defendant’s implementation plan, the competent review agency on the safety of nuclear power generation projects shall take into account the Defendant’s implementation plan in cases where the safety of the project area is objectively obvious and obvious in the project plan at the approval stage of the implementation plan, and if approval is granted without reaching the approval, it may be deemed that there is an abuse

(C) Accordingly, the above C. (3) points out that there was an earthquake risk in the vicinity of the instant project area. However, in light of the fact that the Intervenor obtained a result of the preliminary safety analysis and additional precise examination in the relevant project area for the construction permit of the instant project after the instant application, it cannot be deemed that there was an objective apparent defect in the instant project, and that the construction permit has been granted by the Minister of Science and Technology, since it cannot be deemed that there was an objective apparent defect in the instant project, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not fully consider the stability in the instant disposition, it cannot be said that there was an error of exceeding the discretionary authority or abusing it.

(D) Therefore, this part of the assertion is without merit.

(5) Determination as to the assertion of the above A. (5)

(A) Considering the effect that the Special Act aims to promote the stability of the supply and demand of electricity and contribute to the development of the national economy by efficiently implementing the electric source development business (Article 1) and the impact on the surrounding residents due to the electric source development business, there is an error of deviation or abuse of discretionary power when approving the implementation plan pursuant to Article 5(1) of the same Act even though there is no suitability, necessity and efficiency for stabilizing the supply and demand of electricity of the business in question. However, such necessity, etc. is to be predicted and determined from an expert perspective that takes into account future energy supply and demand conditions, industrial structure changes, and demand for power, etc. It is acceptable to consider that the preparation of a somewhat short supply and demand plan is based on an uncertain social and natural environment. In order to obtain approval pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Special Act, consultation with the heads of relevant central administrative agencies and financial economy departments, the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and Fisheries, and Fisheries, and Fisheries, and Fisheries, and Forestry.

(B) Therefore, there is no reason to assert the pertinent assertion, and the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Gangnam-gu (Presiding Judge)