1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Article 40 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act only stipulates that the subject matter of the order to take measures is “non-performance of the contents of the consultation of the environmental impact assessment.” Thus, even if the matters entered in the environmental impact assessment report are not performed, such matters cannot be subject to an order to take measures unless they fall under the above contents of the consultation. Even if the order to take measures can be issued, the Plaintiff’s obligation under the above environmental impact assessment report is limited to “to produce and distribute a signboard board to ensure that the transportation vehicle complies with the stipulated speed, and conduct education for them” (it is not the Plaintiff’s vehicle but the operator of the transportation vehicle).

Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff conducted the pertinent education, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff violated the agreement on environmental impact assessment even if the transport vehicle did not observe the regulatory speed (20 km a speed).

In addition, “the scope of compliance with the speed of operation within 20 km” in the above environmental assessment report is limited to “the village path that enters from 404 local highways to the Plaintiff’s place of collecting earth and rocks.” Since the place where operation exceeds 20 km, it is out of the above scope, it is not a matter to be observed in the original environmental assessment report, and thus, it is not subject to an order to take measures.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful.

Article 40 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act provides that "The head of the approving agency shall take measures necessary for the implementation of the contents of consultation when the head of the approving agency fails to perform the contents of consultation" in Article 40 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act.