[1] The case holding that, in a case where a lawsuit for revocation is brought against an organization of a local fishing village fraternity, which is not a direct counter party to a decision on modification of a national land use development plan and modification of a golf course business plan, on the grounds that its environmental interests were infringed upon by the above disposition, an organization of a local fishing village fraternity, etc. which is not a natural person, has

[2] The case holding that if there is a defect in the contents of a written environmental impact assessment as to the degree of some misunderstandings or omissions, it cannot be deemed that the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system cannot be achieved, and thus, it cannot be seen as the same as the failure to conduct the environmental impact assessment, and that there is no violation of law of deviations from discretion or abuse in the decision to revise the national land use development plan and the approval to revise

[1] The case holding that, in a case where a lawsuit for revocation is brought against an organization of a local fishing village fraternity, which is not a direct counter party to a decision on modification of a national land use development plan and modification of a golf course business plan, on the grounds that its environmental interests were infringed on by the above disposition, an organization of a local fishing village fraternity, etc., which is not a natural person, has

[2] The case holding that if there is a defect in the contents of the environmental impact assessment as to some errors or omissions, it is difficult to deem that the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system is not sufficient to achieve, and that there is no illegality of deviation from discretion or abuse in the decision to revise the national land use development plan and the approval to revise the golf course project plan based on such environmental impact assessment

[1] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 4 and 5 of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc., Article 8 of the former Act on the Management and Utilization of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 6627 of Jan. 26, 2002)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 4 others (Attorney Park Jong-ok, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and 33 others (Attorney Park Jong-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] The Head of Si/Gun and one other (Law Firm 21st century, Attorney Lee Jae-il, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2002Guhap1618 delivered on July 24, 2003

March 15, 2007

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the Committee on Countermeasures against the Reclaimed Land and the part of the Plaintiff Doj fishing village fraternity in the judgment of first instance shall be revoked, and all of the lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff Doksan shall be dismissed.

2. All appeals filed against the Defendants by Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 are dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs arising between the Plaintiff Changpo-do Reclamation Committee, Plaintiff Seopo-gu fishing village fraternity and the Defendants, the part pertaining to participation in the lawsuit is assessed against the Intervenors. The remainder is assessed against the Plaintiffs, respectively, and the part pertaining to participation in the appeal cost arising between Plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 and the Defendants is assessed against the Intervenors, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiffs, respectively.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The decision of the head of Sinan-Gun on May 1, 2002 on the modification of the national land use development plan and the decision of the modification of the business plan for a non-folal golf course made on June 19, 2002 by the head of Sinan-Gun with respect to the Cheongan-gun, Cheongan-gun, Cheongan-gun, Cheongan-gun, Ma

1. Determination on standing to sue

A. A third party, who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation on the ground that his/her environmental interest is infringed or is likely to be infringed upon by the administrative disposition, is acknowledged to have standing to sue to prove that his/her environmental interest is protected individually, directly, and specifically by the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations, i.e., legally protected interests. However, in cases where the scope of the right to influence is specifically specified in the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations that are anticipated to be infringed on the environment due to the project, such as the act done by the administrative disposition, etc., the residents in the affected area may have direct and serious environmental damage caused by the relevant disposition. Furthermore, the environmental interest is acknowledged to have been living in a pleasant environment without being affected by the environmental infringement beyond the tolerance limit compared before the previous judgment. Such environmental interest is the direct and specific interest that is individually protected on the individual residents, and thus, it is recognized to have standing to sue by being presumed to have been infringed or infringed, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Nu2626.

In this case, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Committee on Countermeasures against the Reclaimed Land, and the Plaintiff Dok Fishing Village shall file a lawsuit in this case on the ground that his environmental interests were infringed, and it is evident that the party is not a direct party to the decision to revise the development plan of this case and the approval to revise the project plan of this case. In such a case, the environmental interests are individually and specifically recognized to each individual resident, as seen above. Therefore, the Committee on Countermeasures against the Reclaimed Land and the Plaintiff Dok Fishing Village shall not have standing to sue in this case, which is not a natural person, to file a lawsuit in this case.

On the other hand, the plaintiff Dodo fishing village fraternity has filed the lawsuit of this case in order to protect the fishery right. However, the issue of this case is whether the illegality of disposition exists due to the failure to conduct the environmental impact assessment as stipulated by the laws and regulations related to environmental interests in relation to environmental interests, and it is difficult to view the property rights such as fishery rights as individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the laws and regulations related to environmental impact assessment, i.e., the interests that are protected by law, and therefore, the plaintiff Dodo fishing village fraternity's assertion

B. Defendant Jeonnam-do Governor alleged that Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 were residents outside the area subject to the environmental impact assessment and they were not third parties with legal interest to seek the amendment of the development plan of this case and the revocation of the approval of the modification of the project plan of this case, which is seen below beyond the scope of the environmental impact assessment. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 12-6, the environmental impact assessment of this case is based on the following facts: in relation to the items of the marine environment, the surrounding coast area (Cheongdo exclusively), the project district and Cheongdon and Cheongdon were set as the area subject to the environmental impact assessment; in relation to water quality items, Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 were residing in the surrounding coast area; there is no counter-proof; and Defendant Jeonnam-do Governor recognized Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 as residents in the area subject to the environmental impact assessment. Thus, this part of the allegation in this case is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

(a) Basic facts

(1) Grounds for the disposition

(A) On September 10, 1998, when Defendant Jeonnam-do established and operated a public golf course facility (270,574 square meters in the name of a golf course in the Cheongnam-gun, Cheongnam-do (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) with the trade name of the non-party golf course in the Cheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and Defendant Jeonnam-do (hereinafter referred to as “the approval to change the business plan as of September 10, 1998”), the company obtained the approval to change the business plan with the content of extending the public golf course into 18 square meters (590,790 square meters in the site) from the Do governor on September 10, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the approval to change the business plan as of September 10, 1998”). On December 10, 1999, the company obtained the approval to change the business plan on September 18, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the above public golf course business plan”).

(B) Thereafter, on February 25, 2002, the non-party company filed an application for amendment to a plan for the utilization of the national territory to extend nine holes in the above 27 holes public golf course with the head of Si/Gun, and on March 23, 2002, the non-party company obtained the amendment of the development plan from March 4, 2002 to March 24, 2002, the non-party company obtained the amendment of the development plan from the head of Si/Gun with the head of Si/Gun with the authority to revise the development plan (hereinafter referred to as "the amendment of the development plan of this case") to the public golf course area of 247,327§³ in the same area as the non-party company's site area of the non-party company's area of 930 square meters in Seo-ri, and the amendment of the development plan to the development plan to the public golf course area of this case was announced by the Governor (hereinafter referred to as "the amendment of the development plan of this case") on May 1, 2009.

(2) Whether the environmental impact assessment was conducted

(A) On December 15, 1997, before obtaining approval for the revision of the business plan as of September 10, 1998, the non-party company submitted an environmental impact assessment report in accordance with the construction project of the non-party company on the aggregate of 1,008,838 square meters including the 81,00,008,838 square meters (hereinafter “area subject to the project in this case”) to the head of the non-party Gun, etc. on the following grounds: (a) around December 15, 1997, the project period from 1998 to 200; (b) 816,00,005, 929, and 8,000,000, 830 square meters including 8,000,000,000, 1997, 197-229, 19,000,000,000,000.

② Around March 1998, the non-party company submitted an environmental impact assessment report on the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party golf course construction project in the area of this case with the project period from 1998 to 2002, and on March 19, 198, the non-party company requested consultation on the above environmental impact assessment to the Governor of the Yeongsan and Seomjin Administration. The Governor of the Specialized Administration of the Yeongsan and Seomjin Administration requested on April 17, 1998 to supplement and prepare the assessment report because the non-party company's non-party company's non-party contents are insufficient in the assessment report, and the Mayor of the Jeonnam Do governor supplemented submitted it to the Governor of the Yeongsan and Seomjin Special Administration on July 1, 1998. The Governor of the Seomjin Special Administration requested to review the contents of consultation to the Governor of the Korea Environmental Policy Evaluation Institute on July 22, 1998 and notified the contents of consultation to the non-party company's.

(B) The instant project area is a golf course site additionally incorporated as a result of the modification of each project plan after the instant environmental impact assessment was implemented (the site for a public golf course located in the area of the instant public golf course for which the company was established and operated for the first time shall not be included in the area subject to environmental impact assessment). Of the instant project area, 320,216 square meters were incorporated as an approval for the modification of the project plan on September 10, 1998, and 420,410 square meters, including 816-1, etc., were incorporated as an approval for the modification of the project plan on September 12, 2001, and 18,798 square meters including Seoho-ri 930-1, etc. were incorporated as an approval for the modification of the project plan on June 19, 202.

(C) The non-party company is conducting an environmental impact investigation after the commencement of construction works according to the amendment of the above project plan.

(3) The environmental pollution status, etc. of a single golf course

(A) On January 4, 2002, when it was discovered that noble fishing was closed in the vicinity of the drainage lock door of the party which is adjacent to the golf course, it was revealed that, from January 4, 2002 to January 5, 2002, the water quality was not in excess of the standards stipulated in the relevant provisions, the level of contamination in the relevant party bank bank bank bank was the result of investigating the farm flow and surrounding areas generated in the relevant party bank, livestock wastewater, non-folal golf course, and the non-folal dysium that flowed from the village bank to the inland waters through the drain door of the smuggling bank bank, and the water quality was not in excess of the standards stipulated in the relevant provisions.

(B) Until now, the non-party company has not been imposed administrative fines, etc. due to water pollution while operating a golf course without permission.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 6-1 through 7, Gap evidence 11-2 through 11, Gap evidence 13-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2 and 3-1 through 4, Eul evidence, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Parties’ assertion

The plaintiffs 2, 3, 4 and the plaintiff supplementary intervenors (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") asserted that each of the dispositions of this case based on the plaintiff's findings are unlawful since the degree of the failure to conduct an environmental impact assessment is to the extent that it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the environmental impact assessment (the specific contents are as follows) as the degree that the degree of the failure to conduct an environmental impact assessment cannot be achieved. Thus, the decision to modify the development plan of this case and the disposition to revise the project plan of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "each of the dispositions of this case") are not so insufficient to achieve the purpose of the environmental impact assessment, even though the degree of the defect is almost over all the assessment items, and the degree of the damage is considerably broad and time. In light of the fact that the degree of the failure to conduct an environmental impact assessment is considerably broad to the extent that it is not sufficient to achieve the purpose of the environmental impact assessment, each of the dispositions of this case is beyond discretion or abuse.

The defendants asserted that each of the dispositions of this case was legally issued on the basis of each of the environmental impact assessment reports of this case prepared in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and that each of the dispositions of this case did not constitute a deviation from discretion and abuse.

(d) Markets:

(1) Whether the contents of environmental impact assessment, non-performance, and disposition are unlawful

If a disposition, such as approval, was made without going through such an environmental impact assessment as prescribed by the Environmental Impact Assessment Act on a project subject to such an environmental impact assessment, such a disposition shall be deemed to be unlawful, but if the content of the environmental impact assessment is somewhat defective, it shall not be deemed that the degree of the defect is sufficient to achieve the legislative purport of the environmental impact assessment system, and as long as the degree of the defect is not different from that of the failure to conduct the environmental impact assessment, the defect is merely one element of determining whether there was a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority on the relevant approval, etc., and the relevant approval, etc. shall not be deemed to be unlawful as a matter of course due to the defect (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 2006, etc.)

(2) Whether the content of the instant environmental impact assessment is incomplete or not

(A) The period of decomposition at the storage of the pesticide

The plaintiffs stated that the environmental impact assessment of this case is not significant since they plan to regulate the spraying time in accordance with the weather conditions and maintain sufficient decomposition period by being kept from the retention period of not less than 14 days. However, there is no objective basis to confirm the degree of decomposition, and most agrochemicals in the environmental impact assessment report of this case are not sufficiently decomposed during the retention period of not less than 14 days. Thus, the environmental impact assessment of this case contains false statement about the impact of pesticide inflow on marine ecosystems. However, according to Gap evidence 12 evidence 10, the environmental impact assessment statement of this case 7.2.5-7 - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -...

(b) O deposit prevention;

The plaintiffs argued to the effect that there is no quantitative expression representing the prevention effect of the marine water pollution in the final discharge area for the purpose of suppressing the marine water pollution, etc. caused by the soil and sand outflow and the increase of deposit levels at the time of construction, but there is no quantitative expression representing the prevention effect in specific figures. Thus, it is difficult to view that the installation of the deposit prevention area is insufficient to prevent marine water pollution due to the soil and sand outflow at the time of construction, etc. on the ground that there is no specific numerical point for the installation of the deposit prevention area and its disposal effect in order to prevent the marine water pollution due to the increase of deposit prevention area at the time of construction (generally, reclamation works are installed to prevent the error prevention area and construction works to prevent the spreading of soil and small soil, and it is known that there is a little difference in the reduction efficiency for each manufacturing company).

(C) Water pollution prevention techniques

The Plaintiffs asserted in the environmental impact assessment of this case that the content of the measures to prevent water pollution caused by daily sewage in light of three items, such as hydrogen ion concentration in relation to water pollution caused by living sewage, biochemical oxygen demand quantity, which is the base item of organic pollutant, etc., are prepared within the permissible emission standards. However, although the total quantity of hydrogen (T-P) and total nitrogen (T-N) are not completely mentioned in the environmental impact assessment report of this case, although the total quantity of hydrogen (T-N) and total nitrogen (T-N) do not have a significant impact on water pollution, the Plaintiffs asserted that the content of the measures to prevent water pollution caused by daily sewage in the environmental impact assessment of this case is inadequate, and therefore, the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Treatment of Sewage, Excreta and Livestock Wastewater (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, Aug. 17, 2002) [Attachment 1] does not provide for measures to prevent water pollution in the form of a river and sewage discharge facility and its total quantity not exceeding 8mp-N-N-N-N-N-based sewage treatment facilities.

(d) appraisal of surface numbers;

According to the environmental impact assessment report of this case, since five branches, including W-1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were measured over four occasions in January 1, 1997 for the assessment of surface water, but pollution occurred, and W-4 points, which are the reservoir in the vicinity of the project, are the highest pollution, and the total nitrogen (T-N) 13.04 is higher than BOD concentration is accumulated in a large quantity, so it is argued that the environmental impact assessment report of this case is incomplete because only the quantitative and passive preventive measures were presented for the assessment of surface water quality, but it is difficult to find that the environmental impact assessment report of this case was conducted on the basis of Gap evidence 12, Eul or 11 through 20 (each item omitted), and that the method of the environmental impact assessment of this case was conducted on the basis of 19-1, 197 W-1, 2, 3, 3, 97, 19-1, 3, 4, 97, and 197.

(e) Evaluation of the impact on the Changpo basin

In principle, the plaintiffs calculated the environmental impact assessment of this case by determining the capacity of the retention tank as "the capacity of the golf course workers and visitors x the initial amount of the storage tank x the frequency of the storage (N:27 times) x the safety rate (2 times) x the safety rate (the two times) x because it is difficult to recognize the design credibility of the design capacity of the environmental impact assessment report of this case because it is difficult to recognize the size of the storage tank or the capacity of the water under attached Table 10 [Attachment 10] as the size of the storage tank and the capacity of the water under the same Article 50 [Attachment 10] of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Conservation Act as the size of the storage tank and the capacity of the golf course water under the same are likely to be contaminated when the water pollution of this case is likely to be contaminated more than ordinary time.

(f) the outflow of earth and sand

In the instant environmental impact assessment report, the Plaintiffs revealed the commencement of construction works and the installation and operation of four storage tanks, including two storage stations, two stations, one station, and one station for C basin, as shown in Table 7.2.3-41> in order to prevent soil outflow in the construction of the instant environmental impact assessment report, but there is no quantitative prediction and basis as to whether the anticipated soil outflow quantity is reduced efficiently to a certain extent by making it difficult for the said flood site to be installed, and it is not entirely known whether it has actual effects or not, and thus, the part to prevent soil outflow in the instant environmental impact assessment report is insufficient.

However, considering Gap evidence Nos. 12 (including paper numbers)’s purport of the entire pleading (the reference materials as of March 15, 2007 submitted by the defendant Jeonnam-do Governor) as well as the purport of the entire pleading (the defendant Jeonnam-do Governor’s submission of the reference materials as of March 15, 2007), since earth and sand companies should have a dives rate of earth and sand erosion more than the area lower than the area lower than the area lower than the area lower than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area higher than the area of the dives, which is generally related to the surface lower part of this case’s 1,800-meter from the area higher than 2.4mm.

(g) Management plan for retention tanks;

In the instant environmental impact assessment report, the Plaintiffs stated that the fish farming tank should be cultivated in the retention tank where wastewater treatment is flowing and confirmed by residents. However, since the fish farming tank is located far from the final outflow outlet, the water from the fish farming tank does not function as the water pollution control index since the fish farming tank does not function as the water pollution control index, it is difficult to view that the instant environmental impact assessment report was poorly prepared on the ground that the fish farming tank was installed in a different place from the place recorded in the instant environmental impact assessment report, on the ground that the fish farming tank was installed in a different place from the place recorded in the instant environmental impact assessment report.

(h) Post environmental impact surveys;

In the instant environmental impact assessment report, the Plaintiffs set the period of ex post facto environmental impact assessment until the completion of construction. However, at least five years after the completion of construction, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the period of ex post environmental impact assessment in the instant environmental impact assessment is defective, but according to the Rules on Environmental Impact Survey, etc. [Attachment 1], the period of ex post environmental impact assessment is prescribed from the commencement of construction to the completion of construction. If the green area in this case is 247,327 square meters and is 250,000 square meters or more, the said period of ex post environmental impact assessment is not applicable until three years after the completion of construction. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’

(i) Failure to implement the plan for reducing environmental impacts;

The plaintiffs set forth in the environmental impact assessment of this case that the water pollution prevention facilities should be installed due to the means to reduce the pollution of water, but the non-party company's assertion that it is unfair because it did not install it yet. However, considering the above evidence and each statement of 12 to 24 (including each number) above, the non-party company reported the installation and management status of the purification facilities of the water pollution source pursuant to Article 30-2 (1) of the Water Quality Conservation Act and Article 49 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the non-party company reported the installation and management status of the purification facilities of the water pollution source, submitted the installation of facilities to prevent the discharge of pollutants and the plan to take measures to prevent the discharge of pollutants, and the follow-up management for the environmental impact assessment

(3) Whether the Nonparty’s failure to conduct the instant environmental impact assessment can be acknowledged on the grounds of the Nonparty’s entrustment of appraisal

The Plaintiffs, based on the result of the commission of appraisal to the Nonparty, the professor of the East University of this Court, arguing that there were many defects other than the foregoing in the instant environmental impact assessment, as seen below, and that the content of the instant environmental impact assessment was distorted, should be examined as follows.

(A) Evidence No. 12-4 (Abstract of this case's environmental impact assessment)

(1) Marine environment.

Sheeting statistics of low-founded sources

According to Gap evidence No. 12-4, among the environmental impact assessment report of this case, it is recognized that "a pesticide is planned to spread, store, and maintain sufficient decomposition time for at least 14 days in consideration of weather conditions, and the impact of agrochemicals is determined to be incomplete."

Although the plaintiffs are based on the strong amount statistics for four years of calculating the storage capacity of the above evaluation statement, according to the guidelines for the evaluation statement in [Attachment 4] of the Ministry of Environment on the preparation, etc. of an environmental impact assessment report, the examination of weather conditions, such as the amount of rainfall, should be based on the data from weather observations for the past 10 years or more, so the "14 days" calculated based on the strong amount statistics for four years or more is difficult to view that the content of the evaluation statement does not affect the quality of agrochemicals because the credibility of the storage period itself is too low, and thus, it cannot be seen that the content of the evaluation statement is inadequate.

However, according to the evidence Eul-Na 24, it is difficult to conclude that the retention period was set at 14 days based on the river volume for 4 years in the environmental impact assessment report of this case, and it is difficult to conclude that Eul-Na 20-2 and 3 each statement [this case’s report’s report’s report’s report’s report’s credibility is low since Eul-Na 20-2 and 3 statements were written [this case’s report’s report’s report’s 1993-1.7mm in 1996, while the river volume for 1991 was 1,01.7mm in the nearest wood 197-196 as of the date on which the unclaimed Observation Observation Station was removed, the average rainfall for 10 years in the nearest wood 1987-196 as of which the unclaimed Observation Observation Station was set at 14 days in the environmental impact assessment report of this case’s case’s report’s year of construction and appraisal];

(C) The frequency of rupture

According to Gap evidence Nos. 12-4 and 10, in the environmental impact assessment report of this case, the facts that set up 2.27 rainfalls (record 843 pages) in calculating the decomposition period of pesticide ingredients can be acknowledged.

As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that the environmental impact assessment of this case is inadequate, since it could not be affected by the outflow of pesticide ingredients because additional rainfalls occur before the lapse of 1.27 days after 1.27 days after 1.27 days after 1.27 days after 1.27 days after 1.27 days after 1.

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 12-4, it can be recognized that the establishment of rainfall frequency at 2.27 times in calculating the decomposition period of pesticide ingredients in the instant environmental impact assessment report (i.e., 15 days ¡À6.6 days/times) means the design of the detention tank to keep the initial river water for at least 15 days, on the assumption that the amount of expenses incurred at least six times was paid once every time on February 27, 200. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of establishing the 2.27 strong frequency in the instant environmental impact assessment report. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' allegation in this part is without merit.

Category of the outflow of water discharged from external sources;

According to Gap evidence No. 12-4, among the environmental impact assessment of this case, the fact that "the impact of water discharged at the time of operation is minor because it was leaked to the external sea area after remaining inland waters" is stated in the marine environmental column of this case.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that the environmental nutrition assessment report of this case does not contain any such descriptions, and therefore, it is inadequate to determine that the environmental nutrition assessment report of this case does not contain any such descriptions, because the pollution components are released in a lump sum due to sporadic operation of a floodgate connected to the external sea area, which has been accumulated for a long time in the inland waters.

However, according to the statements in Eul 15 and 16, the Oran-gun published the report on the services of the dredging project on May 2004 to develop a plan for the improvement of water quality of Changpo Lake Lake because there is an internal or external problem caused by water pollution in Changpo Lake Lake, and the report on the establishment and investigation of the basic plan for the improvement of water quality of Changpo Lake Lake on April 2005. In particular, according to the pollution sources, BOD accounts for the highest rate of 5.5% in total, 11.4% in the case of livestock industry. The population accounts for 11.9% in the form, 21.8% in the land use, industrial wastewater accounts for 0.4% in total, and 0.4% in total, 54.1% in total (T-P) in total and 56.4% in total, and there is no need to acknowledge the effect of the plaintiffs on the water quality improvement (T-P) in light of the above fact that it can be found that it is not necessarily necessary to state the effect of discharged content.

(2) Quality

The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the instant environmental impact assessment report was incomplete, since the Plaintiff mentioned only the ozone and BOD concentration in relation to water quality in the operation of the instant golf course, but the general interest in the operation of the golf course appeared more considerably in the discharge of pesticide and fertilizer ingredients, and thus, it was not summaryed.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 12-4, the treatment facilities of sewage are facilities unrelated to pesticides and fertilizers, as well as separate examinations of the consumption of agrochemicals and the residue of agrochemicals pursuant to Article 28 of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, and it is recognized that the environmental impact assessment report of this case does not separately state agrochemicals and ingredients. Thus, even if the content of agrochemicals and fertilizer ingredients is not indicated in the quality column of the environmental impact assessment report of this case, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed insufficient (However, although the environmental impact assessment of this case stated "BOD concentration 20.8 kilograms/day" in the environmental impact assessment of this case, it is evident that it is a clerical error in the BOD emission load 20.8 kilograms/day).

(3) Methods of inspection.

Considering the geographical characteristics that remain in inland waters for a long time, the Plaintiffs asserted that the content of the assessment of environmental impact of this case is inadequate because the nitrogen and human resources (N) which are the most important water quality items in the lake and marsh water quality of the business operation stage are included in the water quality survey items at the time of construction of the environmental impact assessment at the time of construction of the environmental impact assessment of this case. However, according to the evidence evidence No. 21, the “survey items” can be deemed to be “environmental standard items (it may be excluded from the environmental impact assessment or minor items),” and the hydrogen ion concentration (PH), the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), the organic pollutant standard items, are not included in the environmental impact assessment of this case, and it can be acknowledged that only three items are included in the water quality survey items at the time of construction of the environmental impact assessment at the time of construction of the environmental impact assessment of this case.

(4) Establishment and evaluation of alternative plans.

The plaintiffs asserted that there is a lack of objective grounds for the plan to make the final bank water into inland waters and the plan to release it only by the Cheong System. However, it is unreasonable to conduct a qualitative evaluation without a quantitative evaluation, and it is difficult to conclude it as poor.

(B) Evidence No. 12-6 (Establishment of Area)

(1) Establishing an area subject to evaluation.

The plaintiffs, among the evaluation items of water quality items of living environment convenience in relation to the designation of the area subject to evaluation, shall indicate "the impact of wastewater on the generation, treatment, and expropriated rivers in the course of the operation of the area subject to evaluation" as "inland waters" instead of "inland rivers". The plaintiffs asserted that the contents of the assessment report are likely to be distorted as the "inland waters" should be stated in the area subject to evaluation in inland waters (pathy). However, according to Gap evidence No. 12-6, the assessment report of this case is deemed to be erroneous as otherwise alleged by the plaintiffs, but it does not seem to have any error as to the determination of the area subject to the assessment of this case.

(2) Methods of prediction and analysis of environmental impacts.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 12-6, the fact that the 28th of the environmental impact assessment report of this case is written as the subject of the external sea area (Cheong River) in the forecast analysis and evaluation method among the water quality evaluation items in the living environment specified in the attached Table 3. 2-1>.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs asserted that the environmental impact assessment of this case was inadequate because they committed an error of including the outer sea area (to be dealt with in the marine environment area) falling under the scope of assessment to be dealt with in the marine environment field of the natural environment in the prediction, analysis and evaluation of inland water quality.

However, even if errors as alleged by the plaintiffs in the environmental impact assessment report of this case cause confusions in the water quality forecast analysis and marine environmental field, it seems to cause confusions in understanding data, which cannot be said to be insufficient. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(C) Evidence No. 12-7 (Regional Yellow)

(1) Facilities causing environmental damage.

According to Gap evidence 12-7's statements, the fact that eight business establishments in the Changpo basin and 12 other business establishments in the agricultural and industrial complex are located in the regional yellow column of the environmental impact assessment of this case can be acknowledged as being located in the Changpo basin basin.

In this regard, the plaintiffs asserted that 20 business places, including the occupant enterprises in the agro-industrial complex and other local enterprises, are distributed in the Changpo basin basin, but it is impossible to grasp the degree of pollution that may affect the specific location and water system effects as point pollution source due to the omission of geographic information by each business establishment, which entails a false interpretation that the wastewater of 20 business establishments discharges the wastewater to a specific point in the inland water at the same time, so that the analysis of the impact on the water quality, such as the inland water, and the formulation of countermeasures, may result in a low reliability, leading to defective contents.

However, even according to the plaintiffs' assertion, there is a probability that the instant environmental impact assessment will lead to a defect due to omission of geographic information about wastewater discharge facilities, and according to the statements in Gap evidence 12-7, the location of wastewater discharge facilities is clearly specified in the current status of wastewater discharge facilities, so it is difficult to deem that materials about the facilities causing environmental damage are insufficient, and there was no cumulative impact assessment in the laws and regulations related to environmental impact assessment at the time. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was any defect in the instant environmental impact assessment.

(2) Discharging wastewater shall be marked.

According to Gap evidence No. 12-7, it is recognized that the amount of wastewater discharged in the Table 4.4-3 of the environmental impact assessment report of this case was written as 525.2/metres. According to Gap evidence No. 12-7, it is clear that it is a clerical error on the date of 38 cubic meters in the body of 252.5 cubic meters.

(D) Evidence No. 12-9 (Collection of Residents' Opinions)

(1) Results of gathering residents’ opinions.

According to Gap evidence 12-9's records, in the column of the result of gathering opinions from residents in the environmental impact assessment of this case, it is recognized that the request for the opinion on the means of reducing the traffic volume through the survey of the current traffic volume for the project sections of the Yeongsan and Seomjin Environmental Management Office is reflected in the request for the opinion on the measures of reducing the traffic volume, not the survey of the current traffic volume, and the data

(2) Part of traffic in the economic environment.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 12-9, the Yeongsanmjin environmental management authority may recognize the fact that the local highway No. 815 lines, local highway No. 815 lines, and Gun roads No. 15 lines, require each cross-point No. 815 lines, which are major mobile roads in project districts, presented only the service level of local highway No. 815 lines.

(E) Evidence A 12-10 (Environmental Impact Assessment, Estimated Analysis, and Measures for Reduction)

(1) The same plant and plant prize

According to Gap evidence 12-10, in the environmental impact assessment report of this case, the distribution of animals and plants is mainly examined five kilometers in the radius of the project district, and it is recognized that the habitats were investigated about grassland and clinical fields, such as Galkings, Galkings, Galkings, etc. around the project district.

As to this, the plaintiffs argued to the effect that it is difficult to avoid criticism that the content of the report is insufficient due to the lack of high trust in the data obtained as a result of the investigation because the date and time of the investigation are not specified specifically for land animals, and that the report of the environmental impact assessment in this case is insufficient because the result of the on-site investigation is not found only one kind of wild boar pigs, but it is not consistent with the surrounding situation.

However, it is difficult to view that the results of the assessment are insufficient solely on the grounds as alleged by the Plaintiffs, and thus, the environmental impact assessment in this case cannot be deemed incomplete.

(2) Marine environment.

Sheal salt dye concentration

In the instant environmental impact assessment report, the Plaintiffs asserted that the density of inland waters located far from the surface of the sea is high with respect to the concentration of salt in the fenced waters. This is inconsistent with the actual results, and thus, the above environmental impact assessment report part is inadequate. However, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is not based on the actual results, but on the premise that the concentration of salt at a point located far from the surface of the sea should be lower than the concentration of salt at a point near the surface of the sea. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the instant environmental impact assessment report contains insufficient content in the instant environmental impact assessment report.

(b) Time of investigating marine ecosystems

According to the environmental impact assessment of this case, although the survey results of the marine ecosystem significantly increased compared to B/C, it is argued that it is difficult to believe the result because it is an ordinary expectation and static opposition. However, it is difficult to conclude that the environmental impact assessment is inadequate on the ground that the result of the survey results in the environmental impact assessment of this case has been expected to be followed without the plaintiffs' actual measurement, and it is difficult to conclude that the environmental impact assessment is incomplete. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

Category caused vegetable change in the vegetable tons

Although the plaintiffs were investigated twice as of September 1997 and February 1998 in order to clarify the seasonal changes in the vegetable tons in the instant environmental impact assessment, the plaintiffs were required to conduct the instant environmental impact assessment twice and twice every September and February to verify the seasonal changes in the vegetable tons, and therefore, the instant environmental impact assessment is inadequate. However, just because it is alleged by the plaintiffs, it cannot be deemed that the instant environmental impact assessment was insufficient.

The measurement value of brush concentration;

In the instant environmental impact assessment, the Plaintiffs are deemed to have written salt content in the 7.1.4-50 square meters, but the actual measurement value of salt content is not found at any location in the 7.1.4-50 square meters of the said Table, and thus, the instant environmental impact assessment is deemed to be inadequate. According to the evidence No. 12-10 of the instant environmental impact assessment report, even though it is found that there was any error as alleged above by the Plaintiffs in the instant environmental impact assessment report, it seems to have been merely a clerical error in the number of votes as referred to in the instant environmental impact assessment report.

Mafrancton francton distribution

The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant environmental impact assessment is inadequate since it was insufficient to find out the causes for the special distribution of animal fran tons, but it was only necessary to conduct an investigation on the special distribution of animal fluor even if based on the results of the said written request for appraisal, and according to the evidence No. 12-10, the environmental impact assessment of this case is recognized to clearly reflect the quantity of animal fluorn in the instant environmental impact assessment. Thus, there is no error in relation to this issue in the instant environmental impact assessment.

㉳ 〈표 7.1.4-34〉 기재 오기

According to Gap evidence 12-10, the evaluation of the environmental impact of this case stated "2,309" as the number of animal franc tons at A4 points in A4 on February 2, 1998, but the evaluation of this case was stated as "1,292" in the attached Table 7.1.4-33 of the attached Table 7.1.33 of the attached Table, and the evaluation of the environmental impact of this case is false. Thus, according to the evidence No. 12-10 of the attached Table 7.1.4-34 of the attached Table, it is evident that "2,309" of the above evaluation of environmental impact of this case was erroneous as otherwise alleged by the plaintiffs, but it is apparent that the above evaluation of environmental impact of this case is a clerical error of "1,292" as stated in the attached Table 7.34 of the attached Table.1.34 of the attached Table.

㉴ 표층과 저층의 용존산소 농도

According to Gap evidence 12-10, the environmental impact assessment report of this case contains the following facts: "In particular, it is recognized that the form of oxygen can be formed from some low-rises in the depth of the depth of the flood in which the sexual layer of the water can be formed."

In this regard, the plaintiffs asserted that water quality surveys could not be faithful, such as that the concentration of the ozone layer in the upper layer was measured only by the ozone layer concentration in the lower layer, but it was not known that the low layer concentration in the lower layer was not implemented.

However, according to the statement No. 12-10 of the evidence No. 12-2, it can be acknowledged that there was no fault in the environmental impact assessment report of this case on the ground that there was no fault in the environmental impact assessment of this case on the grounds of the plaintiffs' assertion that there was no fault in the environmental impact assessment of this case.

㉵ 담수역의 저질현황

The plaintiffs asserted that the survey point of the environmental impact assessment of this case is not indicated in the drawing, and that the content of the survey is inadequate and that there is no consideration on the outcome of the survey because the content of the survey is not included in the 7.1.4-51 of the table 7.1.4-51 of this case. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the environmental impact assessment of this case is inadequate solely for the above reasons, and there is no environmental standard for the low quality in the relevant statutes, such as the Water Quality Conservation Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act,

㉶ 유입수 부분

According to Gap evidence No. 12-10, the environmental impact assessment report of this case can be acknowledged that "the fenced area was very low in the water flow from the surrounding river due to its closure. Major water resources in the fenced area are dependent on excellent water resources."

As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that the content that the inflow from the river was not yet available is merely a vague assertion of congrativity without objective data presentation, such as measurement data, and that the environmental impact assessment in this case is inadequate on the ground that there is no ground to determine that water resources in the fenced waters are based on excellent water resources.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 12-10's statements, although it was a river that did not reach the flowing water from the river in the environmental impact assessment report of this case, it can be acknowledged that it was due to the fact that it was merely a usual river that did not reach the flowing water and sent the water into the surrounding area only at the time of river and only at the time of river. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's non-performance of this part is erroneous in stating that the flowing water from the river in the environmental impact assessment of this case is insufficient.

㉷ 주변의 갈대밭 등의 영향

According to Gap evidence 12-10, the environmental impact assessment report of this case contains the following facts: "The dry field in the vicinity, etc. has an impact on the reduction of dystrophys and dystrophys."

As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that the existence of a reeded field alone reduces nutritionic substances. However, as alleged by the plaintiffs, there is a certain division of such division in the environmental impact assessment of this case, it cannot be deemed that the environmental impact assessment of this case is insufficient. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

㉸ 부유물질의 담수역 유입방지

According to Gap evidence No. 12-10, the environmental impact assessment report of this case can be recognized as the fact that "a deposit prevention room and a shock tank are installed and operated prior to the final outlet of a project district in order to prevent the inflow of a fenced area, such as floating materials, due to the implementation of the project."

As to this, the plaintiffs should conduct an investigation into the inflow river water into a fenced area so that it may be considered whether the contamination result occurred due to construction works in the project district or due to pollution in the upper stream of the surrounding river that is irrelevant to the project district, since such investigation has not been conducted, it cannot be said that the environmental impact assessment of this case was incomplete, but it cannot be said that the environmental impact assessment of this case was not conducted on the upper stream water system that is not related to the project district, on the ground that the environmental impact assessment of this case was not conducted on the ground that the environmental impact assessment of

㉹ 배수갑문

In order to reduce the impact on marine ecosystems due to the operation of the instant golf course, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant environmental impact assessment report was omitted in its review. However, since the operation form and the opening and closing cycle of the relevant multiple golf course are automatically opened and closed according to the volume of water, it cannot be deemed that the environmental impact assessment was insufficient on the ground that such fact was omitted from the investigation.

(3) Land use.

According to the environmental impact assessment of this case, the plaintiffs asserted that the green area in the land use plan of the project of this case is 32.32% of the total, which is not satisfied at least 40% of the general golf course green area, and thus, the environmental impact assessment of this case is defective in violation of the provisions of the land use plan.

However, according to the statement of Eul-B evidence 14-3, it is recognized that this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit, since it is not a forest in the case of the non-permanent golf course of this case, and it is not subject to the green belt security rate of 40%.

(4) Water quality.

Corresponding errors, errors, and errors;

According to the water quality column in the report of this case, the plaintiffs do not coincide with each other in calculating the load load of pollutants. The use of oil at the Chang Reservoir basin in the Table 7.23-3 - Table 7.23 - 7 - 7 - 3 - 7 - 3 - 8 - 3 - 7 - 3 - 7 - 7 - 3 - 4 - 7 - 7 - 2 - 3 - 7 - 3 - 7 - 4 - 1 - 7 - 3 - 7 - - 3 - 1 - 4 - 7 - 7 - 1 - 7 - 3 - 7 - 1 - 4 - - 7 - 1 - 3 - 1 - - 3 - - 7 - 1 - - 3 - 1 - - - - 7 - - 3 - - - 1 - - - - 3 - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - 1. - - - - - -. -. - - - - - - - -. -. - - - - -........... -................................................

According to the above entrustment of appraisal, it is evident that there is any clerical error or error as alleged above in the environmental impact assessment report of this case in light of the statements or formula in the title, unit, number, etc. of the phrase or table.

(C) Pollution load for living sewage

In the environmental impact assessment of this case, although the plaintiffs calculated pollution load based on the population data, there is no data to distinguish the market price and non-market price population, the plaintiffs asserted that it is impossible to compute pollution load based on the population data. However, since the project area of this case is all rural areas, it is not reasonable to divide it into the market price and non-market price. Therefore, the plaintiffs' allegation in

Results of analysis of groundwater quality;

Although the plaintiffs asserted that there was an error that judged that the groundwater of the neighboring village adjacent to the project district does not meet the quality standards of drinking water, the results of the examination of the groundwater of the neighboring village adjacent to the project district under the evidence No. 12-10 and No. 14-3 of the evidence No. 7.2.3 of the Table No. 7.23-25 of the Table No. 7.25 of the Table No., the results of the examination of the groundwater of the neighboring village are based on the quality standards of drinking water of the 41 of the Table No. 41 of the Table No. 7.23 of the Table No. 7.3-25 of the Table No. 7.1 of the same Act, but the remaining 40 items are not met the water quality standards, and it can be found that the problems of the groundwater exceeding the water quality standards of the 40 additional items are found to have no problem at the time of the examination. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the

Cersh inland water quality inspection

According to the environmental impact assessment of this case, the plaintiffs asserted that the water quality survey of inland waters was conducted only once on February 1998, and that the frequency of measurement is only once and its reliability is significantly insufficient, and that the data of “the degree of speculation” is difficult to be trusted without being presented.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 12-10 (Records 816 pages), the environmental impact assessment of this case can be acknowledged that the environmental impact assessment of this case was conducted through a total of 20 items, including mercury and salt. In light of these circumstances, the environmental impact assessment report of this case seems to have omitted data rather than making a transparent statement without conducting data research, and according to Eul evidence No. 14-3, the above problem is recognized as having been supplemented at the time of the environmental impact assessment of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the environmental impact assessment of this case was incomplete merely because the above facts were recognized as having been supplemented at the time of the environmental impact assessment of this case

In addition, since the number of water quality testing is low, environmental impact assessment cannot be deemed to be poor.

7 Characteristics of hydrogen ion concentration and salt dye concentration

Although the plaintiffs asserted that there was a defect that did not specify in detail the characteristics of hydrogen ion concentration and salt ion concentration in the environmental impact assessment report of this case, as long as such phenomenon is specified in the environmental impact assessment report, it cannot be deemed that the environmental impact assessment report of this case is insufficient on the ground that it did not clarify the surrounding causes thereof. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

㉳ 농약 독성별 사용량

In the instant environmental impact assessment report, the Plaintiffs did not consider the use column by toxicity of agrochemicals used at a domestic golf course, but asserted that it was erroneous. However, according to the method of inspection of pesticide residues (Ministry of Environment Notice No. 2006-68, Water Quality Conservation Act, Article 61 of the Water Quality Conservation Act, and Article 61 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act), it cannot be said that the Plaintiff did not take into account the ingredients of the non-net substance in the method of inspection of pesticide residues at golf course. Even if considering the non-net substance ingredients, it cannot be said that the environmental impact assessment of this case was insufficient because the non-net substance was extremely insignificant and neglected.

㉴ 농약성분 사용량 및 오염물질량

The plaintiffs asserted that the environmental impact assessment of this case was incomplete since the conditions and timing were based on Japanese data prior to 10 years prior to the operation of the golf course due to the implementation of the project in this case. However, the Ministry of Environment announced the results of the annual investigation into the actual use of agrochemicals at golf courses since 1999. As such, the environmental impact assessment of this case appears to have been referred to Japan's data in the environmental impact assessment of this case since there was no domestic data that was conducted the investigation into the actual use of agrochemicals in 198, which was 198 at the time of the environmental impact assessment of this case.

The plaintiffs made an error in the total amount of the e.g., Table 7.2.3 - 36 of the environmental impact assessment report of this case: the calculation of the amount of agrochemicals used based on this error is inappropriate; however, according to the statement No. 12-10 of the evidence No. 12, the calculation of the sum of the above table was erroneous, but the amount of agrochemicals used was not based on the above aggregate column, and thus, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part

In the instant environmental impact assessment report, the Plaintiffs assumed 43% of active ingredients rate of agrochemicals, 30 days of maximum remaining pesticide residues, 20% of maximum outflow, and 25% of the maximum outflow quantity as the reference data to estimate the residual pesticide content contained in the surface outflow in the instant environmental impact assessment report. However, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant environmental impact assessment report is inadequate due to the lack of clear grounds. As such, in addition to the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 18 and 199, the survey on the actual condition of the use of agrochemicals at golf course was announced when there was no objective data at the time of the instant environmental impact assessment report, and the “environmental impact and assessment scheme” in 202 and the “in the construction of golf course, impact on the ecosystem in the course of golf course operation” in 203, the Plaintiffs’ assertion in this part is without merit.

㉵ 농약 및 비료의 유출농도

According to Gap evidence 12-10, in calculating the level of outflow of agrochemicals and fertilizers in the environmental impact assessment report of this case, the fact that agrochemicals are 5.7 km, fertilizers are anticipated to be 835.8 km and 664.4 km, and the estimated level of outflow at the time of discharge without disposal by applying the initial excellent quantity of 11,530 km, respectively, can be acknowledged as the fact that agrochemicals are 0.49 cm/liter, N are 72.5 cm/liter, and P are calculated by 57.6 cm/liter.

The plaintiffs asserted that the reliability of the concentration of outflow of agrochemicals and fertilizers presented without presenting the basis for the initial outflow amount. However, according to Gap evidence 12-10, it is recognized that the basis for the initial outflow amount was presented in the environmental impact assessment report of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

㉶ 원고들은 이 사건 환경영향평가서에, 오염농도저감방안, 농약 및 비료 등의 유출방지계획, 저류조 설치 및 운영계획, 사후환경영향조사 등과 관련하여 부실하게 기재된 부분이 있다고 주장하나, 이는 위에서 본 것과 중복되므로 이에 대한 판단을 생략한다.

(5) Wastes.

According to the environmental impact assessment of this case, the plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the environmental impact assessment of this case is incomplete since specific data on the amount of waste generated, transportation method, capacity of compost facilities, etc. are not presented, although the plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the environmental impact assessment of this case was not conducted, since the written evidence in Gap evidence 12-10, Eul evidence 23-1, Eul evidence 23-2 and Eul evidence Nos. 24 were included in the written argument, the facts that the summary of the facility for the disposal of restaurant food waste is clearly indicated can be acknowledged. Thus, since the environmental impact assessment of this case was not presented as claimed by the plaintiffs, it is difficult to view that there is any defect in the environmental impact assessment of this case because there is no specific data presentation as claimed by the plaintiffs.

(6) Soil contamination.

The plaintiffs asserted that the two kinds of soil (S-1) in the project district (S-2) in comparison with the soil (S-2) in the center of the project district selected as the location of the soil contamination survey site in the instant environmental impact assessment report are undermining the credibility of the report as they were established regardless of the takeover. However, according to the Gap evidence No. 12-10, the assessment report in the instant environmental impact assessment report is not inconsistent with the water system but with the soil (S-2) in comparison with the soil (S-1) in the project district in which the soil (S-1) was selected as the location of the soil (S-2) and the soil (S-2) in the project district in comparison with the soil (S-2) in the project district. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant environmental impact assessment report is inadequate on the ground that the soil contamination survey site is irrelevant to the water system at which the soil contamination survey site is located.

(7) Noise and vibration.

As a result of the prediction of noise level in the environmental impact assessment of this case, although the parties predicted that the noise level was exceeded the noise level at night due to the increase of the traffic volume centered on the 815 line of national highways when operating the golf course of this case, it is unreasonable to consider that it was a passive countermeasure deviating from the purport of the environmental impact assessment report, but if the traffic volume exceeds the noise environmental level at night due to the traffic volume, it cannot be deemed as a vehicle of the non-party company or golf course users, and it is reasonable to deem that it is a mere increase of traffic volume, and it is difficult to accept the Plaintiffs’ assertion in light of the fact that the impact of the traffic volume on the golf course on the traffic volume is not serious

(8) Population and residence.

Although the Plaintiffs are expected to change the population density and the residential environment due to the increase of users in the instant golf course operation, the instant environmental impact assessment report does not present any means to reduce the impacts of the population and residence due to the operation of the instant golf course, and thus, the instant environmental impact assessment report is deemed inadequate. However, according to the written evidence No. 12-10, the instant environmental impact assessment report states that the population (75,049) and the population density (173.5/m2) of the non-Gun, and the Cheong River area (143.3/m2) and the population density (1493.3m2), which are the location of the instant business establishment, are presented respectively, and the population is reduced as 194. Since it is acknowledged that the number of users, including the employees, are expected to have 700 persons, and that the effect of the increase in the employment and the increase in income of the local community is anticipated due to the local employment of the employees, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the employment impact of the instant golf course is not necessary.

(f) Evidence A 12-11 (Measures to Reduce Effects on Natural and Living Environment)

Since all of the points related to these parts overlap with those mentioned above, it is not determined separately.

(G) Gap evidence 12-12 (Unfavorable Environmental Impact)

According to Gap evidence No. 12-12's records, the environmental impact assessment of this case is acknowledged in the environmental impact inevitably caused by the implementation of the project of this case, such as "Geo-si's soil and sand room", "the anticipated of damage to fishery rights due to changes in marine water quality at the time of operation", and "the occurrence of sewage by visitors and employees unavoidable."

In order to indicate the environmental impact of the project implementation of this case, the plaintiffs must describe the degree of inevitable impact according to the quantitative scale. However, although the aforementioned provisions only described as above and violate the provisions for the preparation of the environmental impact assessment report, the above provisions must be stated as much as possible in a quantitative manner as possible, and thus, the contents of the environmental impact assessment report of this case cannot be deemed to be incomplete solely on the above grounds.

(h) Evidence No. 12-13 (Ex Post Facto Environmental Impact Survey)

(1) Executing entities and period.

As seen above, it has already been sin.

(2) An ex post facto environmental management plan.

In finding the post-environmental management plan on the same and plant, the plaintiffs can compare the impact of the survey point on the implementation of the project on the basis of the survey point at the time of the investigation into the current status with the objective of the survey before the implementation of the project. Thus, although the survey point for post-environmental management is not meaningful, the environmental impact assessment of this case was designated only as a green belt creation area by blocking survey points on the same and plant for post-environmental management, and the environmental impact assessment of this case is written as the "the preservation condition of the construction site and the development status of the forest belt" which is entirely irrelevant to the same and plant, and thus, the environmental impact assessment of this case is inadequate, as alleged by the plaintiffs, since the survey point for post-plant environmental management is designated as a green belt creation area, the environmental impact assessment of this case can not be deemed as defective, but according to the statement under the evidence No. 12-10, according to the records of evidence No. A. 10, the content of the post-management plan of this case is recognized.

(i) Evidence No. 12-14 (Establishment and Evaluation of Substitutes)

As seen above, the judgment on this is omitted.

(j) Gap evidence 12-15 (Comprehensive Evaluation and Conclusion)

(1) Water quality, soil outflow, noise and vibration, population and residence.

As seen above, the judgment on this is omitted.

(2) Estimated amount of wastewater generated in operation.

In the environmental impact assessment of this case, the plaintiffs predicted the impact of the implementation of the project of this case, and state the error in the operation of the golf course of this case as 116 cubic meters/day. This is limited to the presumed amount of sewage generation, and since the treatment capacity of the treatment facilities of sewage is set as 150 cubic meters/day, the above mentioned 116 cubic meters/day is the error applied value.

According to the records of Gap evidence Nos. 12-10 (No. 332 of the records) and Gap evidence No. 12-15 of the evidence No. 12, it can be acknowledged that the maximum treatment capacity and the water volume ordinarily generated from the sewage treatment capacity of 150 cubic meters as stated in the environmental impact assessment report of this case is calculated on a date/day of 116 cubic meters. In light of these facts, the environmental impact assessment of this case cannot be deemed incomplete on the ground that the water volume caused by the operation of the golf course of this case did not be based on the maximum treatment capacity of the sewage treatment facilities of this case.

(k) Gap evidence 12-16 (Supplementary record)

Although the plaintiffs alleged that all the items of investigation meet the quality standards of drinking water in the main text of the environmental impact assessment report of this case, the plaintiffs are claiming that the credibility of the environmental impact assessment report of this case would be undermined by expressing that the quality of drinking water is inferior in the Appendix No. 12, 16, and that the whole purport of the oral argument was shown in the Appendix No. 12 of the evidence No. 12, and that the Appendix No. 16 of the environmental impact assessment report of this case was added to the original text of the environmental impact assessment report of this case, although the non-party company tried to develop groundwater as groundwater by satisfying the quality standards of drinking water as a result of the analysis of the groundwater quality of the golf course of this case, it is recognized that the water was generated by the non-party company's request for supplementation on the ground that the above assessment was insufficient, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the environmental impact assessment

(l) Evidence No. 13 (Supplementary Environmental Impact Assessment)

With respect to an complementary environmental impact assessment report, the plaintiffs indicate that ① double marking of necessary water quality data (140t/day and 150t/day) and non-fluoral groundwater quality data are negative factors that fall short of reliability, and ② HH value at H-1 and H-4 points shows "15.0 through 16.4" due to water quality measurement around a reservoir, it is obvious that the measurement value is obvious, and it is difficult to lower the credibility of the measurement value, such as the discovery of non-realized part of the DO concentration and the P concentration of the eluoral source report, and ③ because of water quality measurement results around a reservoir, it appears that most of the eluoral ingredients in some (H-3 and H-5) content were in the form of a eluoral content analysis, and it still appears that the eluoral content ratio of the eluoral content was low due to the lack of credibility in the eluoral content analysis process.

However, it is unreasonable to view the overall contents of the plaintiffs' assertion that the contents of supplementation are faithful, the credibility of the value of water quality measurement is lowered, the credibility of the measurement value is low, the credibility of the report is difficult to be considered as a faithful supplement, the credibility of the report cannot be assessed, and the trust in the materials whose sources are unclear is difficult to be given. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that the environmental impact assessment report in this case is insufficient merely because the credibility of the supplemented part of the environmental impact assessment report in this case cannot be said to be high, and it is somewhat somewhat insufficient.

(m) Gap evidence 14 (Notice of Environmental Impact Survey Results)

(8) As to the notification of the results of the environmental impact survey, the Plaintiffs are unclear in terms of quantitative treatment effect, such as (i) simply providing that they have prevented soil erosion by construction of 2 days. As such, it is difficult to deem that they have implemented preventive measures based thereon. (ii) as to the “measures for stabilization of soil contamination” of items, the definition is expressed without presenting the current state of area where surface occurred and detailed smallest installation details, etc., and the credibility of the results of the survey is not high. (iii) As such, the current state of preservation is merely presenting only the future measures that have not yet been implemented. As such, it is difficult to determine that the effect of the examination is uncertain, and that there is a lack of reliability and reliability in the results of the examination on the water quality improvement before the implementation of the measures. (iv) It is difficult to determine that there is a lack of reliability in the results of the examination of the results of the examination conducted by 0 days on the surface of 2 days before the implementation of the measures.

On the other hand, as alleged by the plaintiffs, the reason is that the credibility of the report cannot be enhanced, and it cannot be determined that the environmental impact assessment is not reliable. The above circumstances of the plaintiffs' claims are about the results of the post environmental impact assessment conducted after the disposition of this case. Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

(n) Eul or 8 evidence (report on the environmental impact survey after death)

The plaintiffs asserted that it is difficult to evaluate the credibility of the investigation results since the contents of the investigation results are not divided by measuring time, and the results of the investigation are uniform collective expression methods in relation to the post environmental impact investigation report prepared on January 1, 2000, January 1, 2001, and January 2002, and therefore, it is difficult to evaluate the credibility of the investigation results. Thus, the plaintiffs' allegation in this part is without merit.

(4) Whether each disposition of this case is unlawful

(A) First, since the environmental impact assessment of this case was obtained due to the defects, defects, errors, etc. as alleged above by the plaintiffs, the degree of defectiveness of the environmental impact assessment of this case cannot be achieved, and thus, it was not different from the failure to conduct the environmental impact assessment. Thus, we examine the plaintiffs' assertion that the disposition of this case is unlawful.

The plaintiffs' assertion that the environmental impact assessment of this case is inadequate is almost not recognized, but most of the above alleged facts are recognized, but it is found that some errors or omissions were found in the environmental impact assessment of this case. In light of such circumstances, it is difficult to view that the degree of insufficientness of the environmental impact assessment of this case cannot be achieved in the legislative purport of the environmental impact assessment system, and it is not different from that of the environmental impact assessment. Thus, the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(B) Next, even if the degree of insufficientness of the environmental impact assessment of this case does not reach the above degree, we examine the plaintiffs' assertion that the instant disposition constitutes deviation from the scope of discretion or abuse of discretion, considering that there are many defective contents in the instant environmental impact assessment.

First, some of the environmental impact assessment reports of this case are defective, but the defective contents are as above. The above evidence and evidence Nos. 12, 14, 17, 18, and 12-16, and 12-24 (including each number) are recorded in the construction project plan of this case. The non-party company requests the non-party 2 to conduct the environmental impact assessment for the projects; the non-party 4 company's environment for the construction project of this case; the non-party 2 company's construction project of this case's construction project of this case's construction project of this case's construction project of this case's construction of the non-party 2; the non-party 5 company's construction project of this case's construction project of this case's construction of the non-party 2; the non-party 3 company's construction project of this case's construction project of this case's construction of the non-party 4 company's construction project of this case's construction project of this case's construction of new environment impact assessment report; the non-party 2's construction project of this case's construction project.

In light of the above circumstances, since the current technological level and data experience predicts the uncertain state of future environmental change, the environmental impact assessment requires high level of specialized technology, data, and experience accumulation, but it is very difficult to fully meet these requirements, there is a certain limit to secure the accuracy and reliability of the environmental impact assessment, and there is a need to properly harmonize with various factors, such as politics, economy, society, culture, etc. in the course of decision-making of the development project, there is a limited alternative, there is a need for an objective value judgment and comparison between alternatives, and there is a vague standard of decision-making on the development and preservation, and there is an ambiguous standard of decision-making. Therefore, the environmental impact assessment is difficult to be deemed unlawful on the ground that there are some simple technical defects, and the public interest purpose of the people using sports facilities that are created by the disposition of this case as well as the public interest purpose of the people using the sports facilities that are to be considered in the disposition of this case is also an important factor to be considered in the disposition of this case.

3. Conclusion

① Thus, the plaintiff Changpo-do reclaimed Land Countermeasure Committee and the plaintiff Changpo-do fishing village fraternity have no standing to sue the lawsuit in this case. Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the plaintiff Changpo-do reclaimed Land Countermeasure Committee and the plaintiff Changpo-do fishing village fraternity shall be revoked, and the part concerning the plaintiff Changpo-do reclaimed Land Countermeasure Committee and the plaintiff Changpo-do fishing village fraternity shall be dismissed. ② The plaintiff 2, 3, and 4's claims in this case based on the environmental impact assessment in this case and the disposition in this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Accordingly, the part concerning the plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 in the judgment of first instance as to the plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 shall be justified, and the appeal by the plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] List of Intervenors: Omitted

[Attachment] Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes: Omitted.]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)