2015Guhap13079. Invalidity, etc. of any amendment to the national park planning plan

Attached Table 1 as shown in the Plaintiff List 1)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Young-young, Man-kyeong, Man-kin

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Plaintiff 9, 10, 17, 28, 59, 81, 216, 275, 304, 407, 518, 519, 529,

726, 749, 7922) Other plaintiffs' attorney

Law Firm Dodam, Attorney Seo-hwa et al.

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

The Minister of Environment

Government Legal Service Corporation (Law Firm LLC)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Gangwon-do Yangyang-gun

Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Sang-woo, Kim Jong-hee, and Choi Jong-hee

November 2018, 22

January 31, 2019

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuits are dismissed on the sequence 24. to 56., and 58. to 792, listed in the [Attachment 1] List of Plaintiffs.

2. Of the plaintiffs listed in the plaintiffs' list of plaintiffs 1, the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs listed in paragraph 1 above (1) above (1. to 23. and 57.)'s primary claims and preliminary claims are all dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the plaintiffs.

In the first place, on September 14, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that the change of the Neosan National Park Plan, which was made to AEK by the Ministry of Environment on September 14, 2015, is null and void. In the second place, the above change of the Neosan National Park

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Establishment of the background of the implementation of the project for the Yansan Musan National Park, the lue Cables, and the criteria for the installation of cable railways;

1) Under Article 18(2)(b) of the former Natural Parks Act (Amended by Act No. 14228, May 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) and Article 14-2(2) [Attachment 1-2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Natural Parks Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28077, May 29, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply), installation of cable railways is permitted, which is a minimum park within a natural park, not more than 5 kilometers, and not more than 50 persons, hereinafter referred to as 3). Accordingly, from around 2001, various applications for alteration of a park planning for implementation of cable railways were filed, and there was a need for consistent standards for determining the feasibility of installation of cable railways.

2) The Ministry of Environment established and operated the Cable Broadcasting Review Committee from June 8, 2001 to February 3, 2004, and conducted research services on whether or not to permit cable railways in a natural park and its feasibility study. On December 2004, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, following a public hearing, established guidelines for the installation and operation of cable railways in a natural park (Evidence A 3-1). According to the limited permissible standards set out in the above operational guidelines, the "area where it is possible to close, reduce, etc. of cable ways (clock routes, exploration paths, transit roads, etc.)" is the basic principle for the selection of site, and "area where it has a high value such as natural wetlands, ancient belt, etc., habitats, rare species, endangered species, natural monuments, cultural heritage protection zones, and areas affecting the outer 500 meters."

3) On December 2008, the Ministry of Environment: (a) enacted and implemented the guidelines for the installation and operation of cable railwayss in a natural park (Evidence No. 3-2); and (b) on May 3, 201, the said guidelines were amended with the “Guidelines for the Installation and Operation of Cable Railwayss in a natural park” (Evidence No. 4; hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines”). The main contents of the instant guidelines are as follows, which are considered to be considered for the installation of environmentally friendly cable railways, are as follows.

1. Basic direction (a) an area that may contribute to the creation of an eco-friendly park environment, such as an area that may induce restrictions or closure on existing exploration paths or roads, shall be first selected, or an area that may contribute to the creation of an eco-friendly park environment; important ecological landscape resources and traditional temples shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. It shall be installed at a place where major scenic views can be seen, and the major flasing fings shall be set up under the premise of round-out use; the environment-friendly technology which may minimize damage to the natural environment shall be utilized; and the restoration of damaged area shall be actively devised measures. The project operator shall submit a report on cost benefit analysis including the review of economic feasibility, such as operating profits of the relevant project and the analysis of social cost convenience; 2. The following items shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible; the location and distribution of indigenous species, such as wild fauna and flora, natural monument, and major species of wild fauna and flora protected areas and natural monuments (limited to the area of construction);

4) Meanwhile, at the National Park Committee at the 94th Session held around February 2012, the Defendant established the "Criteria for Review of Pilot Projects for National Parks" (Evidence A 5, hereinafter referred to as the "Criteria for Review", along with the guidelines in the instant case, set up detailed criteria for review in four fields, including environmental, economic, public interest, and technological nature, and the main contents thereof are as follows.

I. 환경성1 자연친화적 공원 환경 조성기여1. 기존 탐방로나 도로의 제한 내지 폐쇄를 유도할 수 있는 지역 등 자연친화적 공원환경 조성에 기여할 수 있는 방안2. 중요한 생태경관자원과 전통사찰 등 문화자원은 최대한 보전3. 주요 경관을 조망할 수 있는 곳에 설치하되 주요 봉우리는 피함○ 지자체가 신청한 현재 노선상 주요 봉우리설악산 대청봉, 지리산 천왕봉. 노고단 반야봉 제석봉, 월출산 천황봉0 입지, 시설 설치.운영 등 전반에 대한 실효성 있는 정상 통제방안 제시4. 왕복이용을 전제로 기존탐방로와 연계를 피함(예시) ○ 법정탐방로와 연결되는 샛길이 있는 경우 자연친화적 방법으로 복원○ 입지, 시설 설치.운영 등 전반에 대한 실효성 있는 통제[3] 경관자원 보전1. 주요 경관자원의 상당한 훼손이나 차폐가 우려되는 지역 회피○ 스카이라인, 산림경관, 역사문화경관, 생태경관 등Ⅱ. 경제성① 경제성 검증1. 사업주체는 당해 사업의 운영수익 등 경제성 검토 및 사회적 비용편익분석 등이포함된 비용편익분석보고서를 제출하여 당해 공원관리청이 지정한 외부 전문기관의 검증을 받도록 함○ 경제성 분석적정수요 전망 분석, 시설운영수입, 부속시설 임대수입 등 재무성 분석사회적 비용편익(공원자원 관리비용 등) 등이 포함된 비용편익 분석Ⅲ. 공익성10 국립공원 보전 및 지원에 기여(공원관리협약 제안)1. 국립공원 보전 및 지원에 기여할 수 있도록 다음 항목을 고려하여 구체적으로 제시○ 사업수익의 일부를 공원관리에 기여하는 방안○ 환경보전기금 기탁 방안○ 매년 삭도 운영계획 수립 및 공원관리청과의 사전협의에 관한 사항Ⅳ. 기술성[13] 선진관리시스템2. 상부 체류시간 및 공간, 탑승인원 등 적정 규모를 고려한 삭도설치.운영체계3. 탑승객과 삭도시설 안전관리체계

B. Application for alteration of the first and second park planning for the project in this case by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) and rejection of the National Park Committee

1) The intervenor who rejected the first amendment submitted to the defendant the first park planning amendment bill for the project of this case (4.677cm in length of the route, 0.23km in the large Cheongyang-gun and the upper jum jum jum jum jum jum jum, 4.67cm in length of the route, 0.23km in the large jum jum jum jum jum jum jum jum jum jum jum jum jum).

The ASEAN National Park Committee, which rejected the ground for rejection pursuant to the resolution of June 26, 2012 by the first committee of the National Park Committee, refers to the comprehensive review report of the Specialized Committee for the Projects for the Projects for the Projects for the Projects for the Aviation of the National Parks. The amendment of the National Park Planning (draft) referred to in subparagraphs 2 through 7 related to the Projects for the Projects for the Projects for the Aviation of the National Parks of inland-type National Parks is not fully satisfied with the guidelines of this case and the review criteria of this case.The ASEAN National Park Committee is open to the necessity of the projects for the projects for the projects for the implementation of the projects for the railway against Seosansansan, and implements the projects for the projects for inland-type national parks through proper procedures when it is again presented in conformity with the guidelines of this case and the review criteria of this case. It is difficult for ○○ to review the amendment of the Park Plan submitted by the Gun on July 2, 2012, and if it fails to meet the detailed guidelines of the project plan, such as the guidelines of this case and this case.

2) 2차 변경안 부결 참가인은 강원 양양군 서면 오색~대청봉 인근을 오색삭도 설치구간으로 하여 피고에게 이 사건 사업을 위한 공원계획변경안(노선길이 4.527km, 대청봉과 상부정류장의 이격거리 1.012km, 오색탐방로 폐쇄 대신 오색~대청봉 구간 탐방예약제 시행)을 제출하였는데, 이에 대한 제105차 국립공원위원회의 심의결과ㅏ 및 피고의 참가인에 대한 통지 내용은 다음과 같다.

The routes presented by the Intervenor following the resolution of September 25, 2013 of the National Park Committee shall be somewhat supplemented in comparison with the previous plan, but the guidelines of this case and the review criteria of this case shall be rejected: Provided, That the Seoaksan National Park Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "National Park Committee") has recognized the necessity of pilot projects in the last year, considering that many visitors have high possibility of damaging access routes due to their lack of visitors, it shall select routes meeting the review criteria of this case and faithfully establish and submit a park planning plan after due process. The selection of a pilot project shall be promoted through appropriate procedures. The defendant's notification to the Intervenor on October 7, 2013 shall be made on the basis of the results of the deliberation of the National Park Committee, which was submitted by the Committee on Environment-Friendly Measures, such as the amendment of the Sinsan National Park Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Musan National Park Committee"), which is not suitable for the submission of the guidelines of this case and the review criteria of this case.

(c) Change of the intervenor's third park planning, and change of the defendant's conditional park planning;

1) When the 1, 2nd national park planning change proposal submitted to the Defendant regarding the instant project as above was rejected, the Intervenor reviewed the following 16 routes through field survey and literature data analysis, etc., and among which, upon consultation with the animal and plant investigation, on-site survey, on-site survey, and on-site survey, on-site survey, and cable railway experts, three routes (3, 9, 13) were selected as alternatives.

A person shall be appointed.

2) On April 29, 2015, the Intervenor held a meeting for the Advisory Council of Yangyang-gun and local residents, and examined whether the review criteria of the instant case were met, and submitted to the Defendant on April 29, 2015, a proposal to modify the plan for the third national park (A evidence No. 16; hereinafter referred to as the “instant amendment proposal”) with the length of 3.5m (the route No. 9; hereinafter referred to as the “the route of the instant case”) and the length of the route “1.4m of the separation distance at the end of the lower end of the office,” and the following main contents are as follows. The Intervenor submitted to the Defendant on April 29, 2015, a report on environmental impact assessment (the evidence No. 17, hereinafter referred to as the “natural environment impact review”) conducted on the survey of environmental and analysis of natural ecosystem changes, etc. around April 2015 pursuant to Article 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Natural Parks Act.

○○ Project Period and project cost: 15 months (2016~2018), and 58.7 billion won project location: Gangwon-do Yangyang-gun National Park: At the bottom of the end office (e.g., 1,480 meters) : six mid-distance 6 weeks, average props at about 40 meters per week - approximately 52.18 meters per week average distance at 552.18 meters per week - upper 29 meters, upper ridge - end 297 meters at the end : 198,000,000 and many parts of the project: 3.5 meters per old tamping route (a.g., abolition as at the end of 198): 3.5 meters of water use planning, 248 meters of water use planning at the end of 198,000 square meters and 9.3 meters of water use planning (a.g., 3., 4 meters of natural environment district) -194 meters of m of cultural heritage area per Gu.

16,66.75 square meters: 16,378 square meters (1,936.5 square meters), 139 meters for parking lots, 3,071 square, 3,03.45 meters for green areas created, 6,974 meters for maintenance in its original form) * approximately 0.0016 percent compared to natural protection zones. The main contents of the project plan (based on selection of routes) natural landscape and cultural properties are to be seen as major prospects; the installation points of the 1,936.5 square site and the 2-year ecological field : the maximum of 1,000 square meters away from the 2-year ecological field : the installation of the 2-year ecological field - the installation of the 3-year ecological field - the installation of the 2-year ecological field - the installation of the 1,0000 square meters away from the 3-year ecological field - the installation of the 1,0400 square meters away from the 2-year ecological zone.

3) Meanwhile, according to the National Park Planning Committee (hereinafter “National Park Planning Committee”) decided on November 20, 2012, according to the “Procedures for the implementation of the project for the project for the project for the project for the project for the project for the project for the project for the project for the project for the project for the project for the development of national parks, which is determined by the National Park Committee on November 20, 2012, the National Park Committee: (2) shall determine the formation and operation policies of private expert committees; (3) shall operate a private expert committee comprised of experts in four fields of environmental, economic, and public interest in the Ministry of Environment; and (4) shall comprehensively review the results of the economic verification, the results of the evaluation of natural environment, the results of consultation with related agencies, the opinions of civic groups, etc.; and (5) The National Park Committee shall determine whether to modify the park planning after conducting a serious examination based on the review and on on on on on-site verification by the private expert committee (Evidence No. 94).

4) On April 29, 2015, the Intervenor submitted the instant amendment to the Defendant on May 1, 2015, a civil expert committee was organized on May 1, 2015; the said civil expert committee has conducted a written review from May 4, 2015; from June 25, 2015 to June 26, 2015; from July 5, 2015 to July 6, 2015; and from August 2, 2015 to August 3, 2015; and collected opinions from civil environmental organizations and private business entities on July 30, 2015; and on the preparation of the comprehensive review report from July 25, 2015 to July 25, 2015 to July 208, 2015, the first day of the review of the National Park Committee’s report was prepared; and on the preparation of the comprehensive review report from July 25, 2015 to July 28, 2015.

In conclusion, ○(environmental) Intervenor’s plan is judged to avoid the connection with major enclosed and existing exploration routes and to be in substitution for the guidelines for cable railway facilities such as stops, stops, lines, etc. However, the Intervenor’s plan is determined to be in substitution for the instant guidelines because some damage to the ecosystem and changes in landscape are anticipated due to the installation of the facilities.However, the securing of safety should be further reinforced because weather conditions (fash and lightning) are changing from time to time due to the characteristics of the luxic acid.

○ (Public Interest Nature) The report (economic feasibility analysis) conducted by KEI for the conservation and support of the operating profit of the national park and for the integrated development of the local society is indicated to have economic feasibility rather than 1.0, the average rate of B/C is 1.0, and it is indicated to have economic feasibility. However, it is difficult to comprehensively determine whether there is economic feasibility because the social benefits and expenses set out in the guidelines of this case are not considered. (On the other hand, 00 points pointed out as problems in the proposed change, the reduction of the number of visitors to 200,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000).

5) On August 28, 2015, around 10:00, the 113th National Park Committee (hereinafter “the Park Committee”) was held in the presence of 10 government delegates, 10:00, and 9 civilian members, and the 113th National Park Committee (hereinafter “the Park Committee”) was deliberated on the following: (i) the amendment of the park planning to create a nature learning place for the Korea Sea National Park; (ii) the amendment of the park planning to be developed as a visiting route for the multi-sea National Park Bodon National Park; and (iii) the amendment of the instant park planning (an amendment of the park planning to be newly established for the Seoaksan National Park, Masan National Park); (iv) the review report of the Private Committee

6) As to the instant amendment, the members of the Park Committee made a bearer vote on the instant amendment at around 17:00 on the same day, following a long-term debate on the matters pointed out as a problem in the review report of the Private Park Committee. As a result, the instant amendment was passed on the condition that seven of the total number of voters were indicated in the notice given in paragraph 12 Tables 12, 4, 1, 1, 1, 7, 1, 7, 200 (Evidence A). If the Intervenor stated the route of the instant amendment and the route of the instant amendment set forth in the notice given in the 17th National Park Planning, which was rejected by the Intervenor’s previous application for the instant amendment, on the following occasions:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

7) On September 14, 2015, the Defendant, based on Article 15 of the former Natural Parks Act, revised and published the plan for the Nansan National Park (No. 2, AEK, hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

(a) Park facilities planning; A cableway among general transportation facilities: One to two roads; (b) the outline of park facilities to be modified from one route; (1) the area of the right of the small-sized cable park (1.2km) to two routes; (2) the establishment of a system for monitoring post-management (or the establishment of a public morals system (or the establishment of a open-type committee) the establishment of a system for monitoring post-management (or the establishment of a open-type committee) the establishment of a system for protecting endangered species (or the establishment of a new committee) the establishment of a 1.2km (2km) to 3.5km at the end of the end office (2) the area of the right of the small-sized urban park (or the modification of the park plan) the establishment of the 1.2km Special Metropolitan City and Seoak-dong Special Metropolitan City (2) the area of the right of the 1.5km Special Metropolitan City and Seoak-gu Special Metropolitan City (which is newly established) the establishment of a new plan and the establishment of a safety measures for protecting neighboring plants by the 5% Special Urban Management Fund);

D. Circumstances after the instant disposition was rendered

(i)to conduct environmental impact assessments and consultation with the main regional environmental office;

A) As a follow-up procedure following the instant disposition, the Intervenor conducted an environmental impact assessment on the instant project pursuant to Article 22(1)7 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and Article 31(2) [Attachment Table 3] 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Around July 2016, the said environmental impact assessment report (hereinafter “instant environmental impact assessment report”) was prepared and submitted to the original regional environmental office. The impact prediction and measures for reducing the impact of the instant project as indicated in the instant environmental impact assessment report (including supplementary materials), and the contents to be reflected in the review results of the Park Committee. The instant environmental impact assessment report contains more detailed and accurate contents than the instant environmental impact assessment report submitted by the Intervenor at the time of the submission of the instant draft of the instant amendment, which was conducted for a long time and several times.

The prediction of impacts on the environment and measures to reduce them.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Matters to be reflected as a result of deliberation by the Park Committee of this case.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

B) From November 2016 to December 2016, the Intervenor submitted a review and supplementary document (No. 31) concerning the field of scenery from November 2016 to December 2016, and continued supplementation of the Defendant’s request for supplementation on the seven conditions attached to the instant disposition (No. 41). As such, the Intervenor’s consultation and supplement procedures regarding the instant environmental impact assessment are underway.

C) On the other hand, in the items of "establishment and evaluation of the 12th environmental impact assessment report of this case", the review of the 16th routes initially adopted by the intervenor as the candidate and the main points of the review are as follows: (a) as a result of the priority review of the three routes on which the alternative routes were located, the conclusion that the instant routes are the optimal routes based on the following grounds was derived.

0 이 사건 노선의 장점 및 단점장점- 이 사건 검토기준 등 부합된 노선임야생동물은 멸종위기 동물(산양, 담비, 삶, 하늘다람쥐 등)의 배설물은 일부 발견되었으나, 서식지가 아닌 이동통로로 추정. 특이식생 없음과거 탐방로(야영장) 이용한 노선(지주, 정류장) 설치로 환경훼손 최소화 가능조망권은 동해와 주전골, 한계령, 점봉산, 서북능선 등이 조망됨| 대청봉과 중청봉 및 동해안 일출 조망 가능▶ 단점.설악산 천불동계곡, 공룡능선 등 조망 불가능- 삭도 노선이 44번국도 상공을 넘어감○ 최적노선 결정 이유▶ 이 사건 노선은 최소한의 중간지주(6개)를 설치하여 끝청 하단(1,480m)까지 올라가는 노선으로서 상부정류장에서 조망은 대청봉, 중청봉 및 동해안 일출 등을 볼 수있는 곳으로 탐방객을 만족시킬 수 있는 최적의 장소임상부정류장은 환경훼손을 최소화하면서 자연친화적 공원환경 조성에 기여할 수 있는 노선으로 평가됨하부정류장은 지역상권과 연계활용이 가능하며 지역주민과 상생하여 주변 활성화를실현할 수 있는 지역임

2) Non-permission of change of cultural heritage phenomenon and result of administrative appeal

A) On July 20, 2016, the intervenor filed an application with the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration for permission to modify cultural heritage phenomena under Article 35(1) of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 13249, Mar. 27, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) to install scopic cable within the scopic natural protection zone, which is a natural monument No. 171, in relation to the implementation of the instant project. However, on December 30, 2016, the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration rejected the application for permission on the following grounds that the application for permission under Article 36 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act was rejected on the grounds that it is judged that the foregoing application would have a significant impact on cultural heritage due to the installation, operation, etc. of scopic cable and 12 meetings of the Cultural Heritage Committee (amended by Act No. 13249, Dec. 28, 2016).

(1) In the field of animal: It is anticipated that the deterioration of the habitats of wild animals, including noise, vibration, etc. caused by blasting for the construction of a scropway and operation of helicopters, will occur. In particular, as a result of the survey on the development of mountain villages for the last one year between the areas, there is a large number of population of mountain habitats and the suitability of habitats, so that there is a high living space, and that there is a narrow scambling of population due to the characteristics of a narrow mountain scam. (2) It is anticipated that there is serious possibility of intrusion into alien species (plant and hospital) within a natural protection area.(3) It is anticipated that the evidence useful to understand the scropheric stage, such as melting and erosioning, and in particular, it is anticipated that the area where an scrop road is scheduled to be installed will be significantly damaged by the installation of a stop place.In the area of scambling, if the installation of a scular scam and scambane is likely to be considerably installed.

B) On March 3, 2017, the Intervenor filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the grounds that he/she was dissatisfied with the foregoing non-permission disposition by the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration. The Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which was discussed by the nine Ministries of the Government on June 15, 2017, approved the amendment of the instant case on the condition that the plan of follow-up management was formulated through a comprehensive review on the impact of the instant project on the project section. The Defendant’s policy objectives and improvement tasks presented in the “Master Master Plan for the Preservation, Management, and Utilization of Cultural Heritage (2012-2016)” under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, are actively emphasizing the promotion of the utilization of cultural heritage and the extension of cultural enjoyment rights. However, the Defendant, on the other hand, did not properly consider the aspect of its utilization by focusing on the preservation and management aspects of the instant cultural heritage. In full view of the fact that the resolution procedure of the Cultural Heritage Committee was not run properly in the situation where experts in the relevant field conflict with each other.

In the field of animal: The number of props of luxway is six, the average height is about 40 meters, and the regional average distance is about 552 meters, so it is difficult to view that there is a big obstacle to the avoidance of movement in mountain. When construction works take measures to reduce noise and vibration installation methods, noise reduction devices, etc., the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration grants permission for the alteration of the current state to earth and sand observation units and visitors on August 26, 2015, the maximum form of luxulous gale is the main form of mountain, although the lux is expressed that the lux is the lux of a mountain, although it is different in this case, it is inconsistent with other previous research materials or previous arguments, and it is difficult to conclude that the luxulous gal is likely to cause damage to the living environment and noise due to the removal and elimination of noise by experts in the form of this case.

(2) In the field of plant: Oral railway is a structure that 2m high from the ground to the upper 40m high or higher level of 40m or higher level of landscape, and sees scenery, etc. using visiting paths with a height of 1.2m or more again, and it is a closed facility for visitors unable to follow the ground or move out of the mountain gate, and there is a method of installing airburging and inhaled vibration in the entry exit, etc., so it cannot be deemed that there is a lack of risk of inflow of vegetable plants or germs in the area of the above cultural heritage because more than 3,000 square meters are directly going into the area of the above cultural heritage, and it is hard to find that there is a small range of 3m or less from the end of the geological field office to the lower 529m or no later than the lower vegetable titic titic titrative titrative titral titral titral.

C) The Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration, on November 24, 2017, pursuant to the purport of a ruling citing the said administrative appeals commission.

On the part of the Intervenor, the author notified the Intervenor of the conditional permission for the alteration of the current state of the installation of lusular railway in the natural protection zone in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

D) On the conditional permission of the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration, residents of Gangwon-do, including Plaintiff D, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of conditional permission for the alteration of current state against the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration, and the lawsuit is pending (Seoul Administrative Court 2018Guhap50802).

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, evidence 9, evidence 12, evidence 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 25, evidence 6 through 68, Eul evidence 1, 3, 4, 15, Eul evidence 3, evidence 13 through 17, 22, 25, 27, 29, 33, evidence 38 through 41 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. Determination on the main safety defense against standing to sue

1) The defendant's assertion

The plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs by the sequence listed in the plaintiffs' list) are not the counter party to the disposition of this case, and there is no legal interest in seeking nullification or revocation of the disposition of this case as follows, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

A) Plaintiffs 1. through 23 were residents of Yangyang-gun, in which the instant route is located, but the water source of the water supply business office of Yangyang-gun, in which the said Plaintiffs were supplied with the water supply facilities, is not lusium, but syang-do, and the location of the water supply business office was also located far away from the place where the lusk cable is installed, and thus, the water pollution caused by the instant project does not affect the said Plaintiffs.

B) Plaintiffs 24. to 132. and 786. through 788. The residents of Gangwon-do, other than Yangyang-gun, constitute residents outside the area subject to the environmental impact assessment, and did not prove any infringement of legal interests arising from the installation of Ompics.

C) Plaintiff 57.(D) has resided in the beginning of the beginning of the 20th or longer year in the vicinity of the Seosansan and continued to engage in preservation activities, research activities, etc. of Seosan and Seosan. However, this is merely an activity based on an individual’s symbol, and cannot be deemed as a legal interest protected by the relevant statutes.

D) Since Plaintiff 133 through 785 and Plaintiff 789 through 792 filed the instant lawsuit on the grounds that they were residents living in various national areas other than Gangwon-do, they are merely love and enjoying visits, there is no room to acknowledge the existence of legal protected interests.

2) Relevant legal principles

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, shall be deemed 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. However, in cases where the environmental impact assessment, etc. is conducted under the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations, the purport of the disposition is to protect the individual interest that can live in a pleasant environment without being subject to the environmental infringement beyond the permissible limit, compared to the previous records of the residents in the area subject to the environmental impact assessment, which is anticipated to cause direct and significant environmental damage due to the business, and thus, the above environmental interest held by the above residents in relation to the disposition is presumed to have been infringed or threatened to be infringed on the environmental interest of the individual residents, barring special circumstances, and thus, the standing to sue is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du33016, Mar. 16, 2006).

However, in a case where the scope of the right of environmental impact likely to be affected by the relevant administrative disposition or the relevant laws and regulations does not specifically provide for the scope of the right of environmental impact, the pertinent disposition is recognized as being legally protected and standing to sue is recognized only if it proves that environmental damage has been, or is likely to be, caused by the environmental damage exceeding the tolerance limit compared to the previous disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du14001, Dec. 22, 2006; 2007Du16127, Apr. 15, 2010). The term “legal protected interests” refers to cases where there are individual, direct and specific interests protected by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and relevant laws and regulations. On the contrary, if the general and indirect abstract interests of the general public as a result of the protection of public interest accrue, it cannot be said that there are legal interests protected (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du33330, Mar. 16, 2006).

3) Determination on the plaintiffs 1. to 23. (The plaintiffs living in Yangyang-gun)'s standing to sue

A) Article 17(2) of the former Natural Parks Act, which is the basis law for the disposition of this case, provides that where a park planning is determined or revised, the plan shall be evaluated and reflected in its impact on the natural environment in advance. In addition, the project of this case constitutes a construction project of cable railways (to transport people or cargo by operating a track on the line installed in the public) with a length of at least two kilometers in length, which is stipulated as a project subject to environmental impact assessment under Article 22(1)7 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and Article 31(2) [Attachment 3] 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, the Environmental Impact Assessment Act constitutes a law related to the disposition of this case, which is a content of modifying the national park planning for the implementation of the project of

B) The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 17 and 66 and the overall purport of the pleadings.

① At the time of the review of the natural environment impact of this case conducted around April 2015, the scope of the water quality items was 'the water system (A No. 17 No. 34)', and the area subject to the assessment of water quality items at the time of the environmental impact assessment conducted around July 2016 was 'the neighboring water system (A No. 66 No. 35) around the project route.

② In the process of the environmental impact assessment, the water quality field of the instant river is included in the Yangyang-gun water system in the color of the ocean (local second-class river). The flow of the river was conducted by considering the fact that the flow of the water was dried (local second-class river) and the flow of the water into the ocean (local second-class river) and that it was finally flowing into the East-west river. Accordingly, the environmental impact assessment in the instant case was conducted by adding 4 points (o-dried and non-dried water intake) whose water quality was measured over 1 through 4 times at the time of the examination of the natural environment direction of the instant case, to 5th day of May 17, 2016, the water intake of 5 points out of the fiveth day of water intake, which was in force on the remaining 6th day of the fiveth day of the water intake, and the additional five points out of the fiveth day of the water intake, which were found to have been dried at the same 1,000 South-west water intake level as above.

C) According to the above facts, residents living in Yangyang-gun are supplied with water taken and purified from Yancheon and Yangyang-gun, which is the area subject to examination of natural environmental impact or environmental impact assessment following the implementation of the project of this case, and are living in the surrounding area where water pollution is likely to occur due to the project of this case. Thus, it is presumed that they actually have individual, direct, and specific environmental interests protected under the former Natural Parks Act or the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, which correspond to the relevant laws and regulations or relevant laws and regulations.

D) Therefore, among the plaintiffs, plaintiffs 1. to 23 who reside in Yangyang-gun, Gangwon-do, standing to sue against the disposition of this case is recognized.

4) Determination on plaintiffs 57. (D)'s standing to sue

A) Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged according to the overall purport of Gap evidence 17, Nos. 44 through 49-3, and No. 66-3, and the whole pleadings.

(1) From 192 to 100, Plaintiff D (E) had resided in the vicinity of the Gocho-si, etc. in order to file a complaint against the damage of the lusium, to promote the registration of the lusium, to protect rare animals such as mountain, and to protect rare animals such as mountain, and to oppose the installation of the Southern lusium.

(2) Plaintiff D received official commendation from the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration with respect to the above harmful mountain and wild animal protection activities: ① He received official commendation from H National Park Management Corporation; ② was awarded from H National Park Management Corporation on September 15, 2002, but such mountain people returned to the state; ④ was developing the mountain environment key movement from K Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs, and developed various environmental conservation campaigns such as the conservation of mountain habitats designated by the Ministry of Environment for the conservation of the environment; ⑤ was continuously accused of the 7th anniversary of the 9th anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 3nd anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 3nd anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 2nd of the 2nd anniversary of the 3th anniversary of the 1st of the 3th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st.

(4) At the time of the review of the impact of the natural environment of this case, the subject of the review of the natural environment of this case was ‘a planned area and surrounding area' to understand ‘a change in the shape before and after the implementation of the project that can be seen at the point of view of the view at the view of the view of the view, and ‘a zone within 1,000 meters around the planned area and surrounding area in order to understand ‘a change in the form of habitats (the existence of natural norms, legal protection species, damage to the 1st class area of ecology and nature map, damage to the green nature map and existing vegetation)'. The subject of the assessment of ‘a natural environment asset' of this case was an area where the change in the natural environment of the same and plants is anticipated, and the subject of the assessment of ‘dynamic and plant items' was within 1,000 km from the project route and surrounding area (the distance between the project route and surrounding area).

(5) Chapter 11 of the environmental impact assessment of this case provides for the following measures: "The prediction of landscape damage caused by the construction and operation of cable railways due to the damage of the living environment of residents resulting from the implementation of the project of this case", and "the maximum use of existing topography and facilities and the creation of small-scale facilities" as reduction measures.

B) Determination

(1) In order to implement the instant project as seen earlier, it shall undergo an environmental impact review as stipulated in Article 17(2) of the former Natural Parks Act and an environmental impact assessment as stipulated in Article 22(1) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act. Thus, each of the above statutes may be deemed as the grounds for the instant disposition or the relevant statutes.

However, it is questionable whether it is merely a general, indirect, and abstract environmental interest of the general public as a result of the protection of public interest, unlike other items clearly affecting the individual, direct, and specific interests of the residents in the assessment area, such as water quality, air quality, and noise and vibration, even though it is subject to review of the natural environment impact assessment and environmental impact assessment under the above laws and regulations.

However, if environmental interest in the same plant, plant, or natural landscape is always considered to be the general and indirect abstract interest, and such environmental interest has been given to any individual a direct and special mental satisfaction or happiness, it can be evaluated that it has reached the degree of individual direct and specific interest. Chapter 11 of the environmental impact assessment report of this case also refers to the prediction of landscape damage caused by the installation and operation of cable railways as one of the "environmental damage caused by the living environment of residents". Thus, if a resident living in an area subject to environmental impact assessment is damaged or destroyed by the disposition of this case and the residents have suffered mental damage exceeding the tolerance limit, such benefit can be evaluated as the environmental interest protected by law, and there is no reason to view it differently from the mental damage caused by noise and vibration.

(2) If so, even if a resident of the area other than the area subject to the environmental impact assessment of this case is a resident of the same case, if it proves that the natural landscape or plant changes arising from the disposition of this case and the previous disposition of this case have suffered or is likely to suffer mental damage exceeding the tolerance limit, he shall be deemed to have the individual, direct, and specific interest to dispute the disposition of this case.

(3) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire arguments, the following circumstances revealed, the plaintiff D had a special mental satisfaction or happiness corresponding to the residents in the area subject to environmental impact assessment through the "Preservation of Natural Scenery in Yansan" and the "Protection of Fauna and Flora in Yansan". Thus, it is recognized that the disposition of this case is likely to cause individual, direct, and specific mental damage exceeding the tolerance limit due to the disposition of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff D has standing to sue the disposition of this case.

① From around 1992 to around 26 years, Plaintiff D’s goal is to protect animals and plants living in luxic acid, such as luxic acid and mountain mountain, and the fact that it has engaged in various activities is proved by objective evidence.

② In light of the interest, difficulty, and unconstitutionality of Plaintiff D’s animals and plants that were known by the Plaintiff D’s behavior and activities, it appears that Plaintiff D used the activities for preserving the natural landscape and protecting the animals and plants living in lusical acid as its own means of self-realization. In particular, Plaintiff D has actively opposed to the instant activities. If the environmental interest is damaged due to the instant disposition, Plaintiff D would be expected to suffer considerable mental distress beyond the universal sense of loss and rusity that the general public will gain.

③ In relation to the items of ‘natural scenery' or ‘like and botanical gardens', the standing to sue may be recognized if the "in the area subject to the assessment of the environmental impact of this case" resides in the business route of this case and its surrounding area (one kilometer), or there is a person who regularly engages in occupational activities at all times. While the plaintiff D does not reside in the above area, it is sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff's daily effort and time are equivalent to occupational activities, and that the plaintiff D has reached the degree of his job to obtain satisfaction and satisfaction with the general public with respect to the job that is obtained by the plaintiff D on the basis of such activities.

④ In the case of natural scenery or the same and plant items, if the area subject to environmental assessment is located in a rare mountain, there are many cases where it is difficult for a person entitled to standing to sue to sue to exist, and even in the practical aspect of giving the opportunity to dispute about the disposition likely to cause environmental damage through the form of a principal action under our legal system, which does not recognize a principal lawsuit, if a person obtains a special mental satisfaction based on the preservation of environmental benefits, such as Plaintiff D, it is also necessary to recognize it as an individual, direct, and specific interest.

5) Determination on the remaining plaintiffs' standing to sue

As seen earlier, the plaintiffs other than the above plaintiffs (Plaintiffs 1 through 23, and 57.) who are qualified to sue, i.e., plaintiffs 24. through 56, and 58. through 792 who reside in areas other than Yangyang-gun and do not reside in the area subject to the environmental impact assessment of this case or the environmental impact assessment of this case. In addition, in addition to the general and indirect abstract interests commonly held by the general public by preserving the project object of this case, it is not proved that the environmental damage exceeding the limit of tolerance is suffered or is likely to be suffered due to the disposition of this case, i.e., direct and specific environmental interests that are individually protected, and therefore, standing to sue is not recognized.

6) Sub-decisions

Therefore, since the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs 1. to 23. and 57. among the lawsuit of this case, standing to sue against the disposition of this case is not recognized, the lawsuit of the above plaintiffs is unlawful. The defendant's principal safety defense related to standing to sue is justified within the above scope of recognition.

B. Determination as to the principal safety defense of the eligible eligibility

1) The defendant's assertion

In ordinary, “public announcement” is a general and abstract standard and cannot be deemed as a “disposition”. In the case of the instant disposition, only one cableway is public announcement that is newly established on the items of traffic and transportation facilities in the plan for park facilities concerning Seoaksan National Park, and does not stipulate specific matters concerning the instant project, etc., but does not have binding force on the subsequent procedure of the instant public announcement. In other words, the instant public announcement does not allow the installation of lue cable, but also requires consultation on environmental impact assessment (Article 22 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act), permission to implement park projects (Article 20(1) of the National Park Management Corporation (Article 8 of the Baekdudaegan Protection Act), which is delegated or entrusted with the authority by the Defendant, by consultation on development activities (Article 21 of the Act on the Management and Management of Baekdudaegan), permission to temporarily use state forests (Article 15-2 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act) and permission to use mountainous districts (Article 15-2 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act). Thus, the current state alteration of cultural property and its legal status can not be recognized.

2) Determination

In principle, an administrative agency’s disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to an act of an administrative agency’s public law that directly affects the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or directly causing other legal effects on a specific matter. Thus, an administrative agency’s internal decision-making, etc. does not constitute an act that does not directly cause legal change in the legal status of the other party or related persons (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu6889, Aug. 20, 199; 2010Du111, Apr. 21, 201). Therefore, if a certain notice has the character of regulating the rights and obligations or legal relations of the people directly without mediating other enforcement acts, it constitutes an administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du2506, Sept. 22, 2006).

As alleged by the Defendant, the instant disposition alone does not enable the establishment and operation of the color cable in the section from the Yangyang-gun C to the lower end of the office. However, the various dispositions mentioned by the Defendant for the implementation of the instant project are separate dispositions that differ in the requirements and effects based on each other’s laws. Of them, only the final disposition for the implementation of the instant project is not eligible.

In addition, according to the facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the disposition of this case is that the contents of the plan of park facilities concerning Seoaksan National Park, which added only one route to two existing routes, and the location of the new route is from C to C, to 3.5 km at the end of the office at the end." The two Yang-gun, according to the disposition of this case, can proceed with the procedure related to the operation of the project of this case, and due to the construction of lucul cable on the route of this case, residents in the area subject to the review of the natural environment impact and environmental impact assessment, etc. are affected by specific rights and duties or legal relations, as the disposition of this case constitutes a disposition subject to appeal litigation, since there is a concern that the construction of lucul cable is likely to be affected by environmental interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations.

3) Sub-decisions

The defendant's defenses concerning the eligibility for the application are without merit.

3. Plaintiffs 1. to 23. and 57. (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”)’ assertion

A. As to the violation of the Baekdudaegan Protection Act (hereinafter “ Baekdudaegan Protection Act”).

Article 7(1)2 of the Baekdudaegan allows only the installation of “facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree as facilities for public use or public use, such as roads, railroads, and rivers,” and the purpose of the luscing cable railways is not to create facilities necessary for luscing. Thus, the instant disposition is a significant violation of the Baekdudaegan Act and is null and void as it is reasonable. (The main assertion) Even though not so, the Defendant did not review whether the luscing cable is necessarily necessary facilities, and thus, it constitutes grounds for revocation (preliminary assertion) since it deviates from and abused discretionary authority, where it omitted matters to be included in the subject of consideration of the balancing of profits.

B. The assertion regarding procedural illegality

1) According to Article 6 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Natural Parks Act, a meeting of the National Park Committee shall be composed of "members of the ministry and office related to the agenda items for deliberation" among the members of the National Park Committee. This is to resolve the problem that imbalances between government delegates and civilian members in the process of organizing the National Park Committee by restrictive participation only in the relevant agenda items. However, the Park Committee of this case, including the instant amendment, participated in the deliberation and voting even though the members of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries related only to the two remaining agenda items (including the project to create a marine nature learning place and the project to create a multi-sea-do visiting Do-do-do-do-do-do-ro-ro-ro-ro-ro-ro-ro) were disqualified for the amendment of this case. The amendment of this case was not passed only by the full number of members of the National Park Committee and was first processed for the first time after the enactment of the provision on restriction on participation in the National Park Committee in 2007.

2) According to Article 9(1) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Committees belonging to Administrative Agencies (hereinafter “Administrative Agency Committee Act”), the Committee shall notify the members of the schedule and agenda at least seven days prior to the meeting. According to Article 6(5) of the Operating Rules of the National Park Committee, the Committee shall distribute the agenda items for deliberation and the data necessary for deliberation by no later than three days prior to the meeting, and exceptionally, the Committee may not distribute the agenda items in advance only in cases where the agenda items cannot be distributed prior to the meeting due to urgent convening of the meeting. However, by distributing the review report of the Private Committee (Evidence 25) that comes up on the 16th page to the meeting of the Committee, so that the Committee may not conduct a fair and transparent deliberation by presenting reasonable grounds for the result of the deliberation of the Committee, the Committee has to ensure that a fair and transparent deliberation is conducted by violating Article 5(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Agency Committee Act and Article 6(5) of the Operating Rules of the National Park Committee.

(c)non-exercise, deviation, or abuse of discretionary authority;

For the following reasons, the instant disposition is in violation of the law of deviation and abuse of discretion due to the non-exercise of sentence or the non-exercise of sentence.

1) Article 7 (1) 2 of the Baekdudaegan Act only allows installation of facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree for public use and public use, such as roads, railroads, and rivers, and Article 18 (2) 1 (b) of the former Natural Parks Act strictly limits the installation of minimum park facilities and park projects within a nature conservation district in a park. Since Mam Cable is a convenient facility for use, it does not constitute “influent necessity” or “minimum park facilities.” Nevertheless, the Defendant did not review whether Mam Cable meets the above requirements, and the Defendant did not take into account whether Mam Cable meets the above requirements. Nevertheless, the other countries have already been authorized to close Mam Cable, without considering the environmental damage and high seas.

2) Article 23-2 of the former Natural Parks Act provides that a facility to cut the ecological axis may be installed only in cases where an inevitable reason and evidentiary materials are submitted to the park management agency with respect to a minimum facility or structure, which is deemed inevitable to be installed in light of the principle of priority of ecological axis, according to the principle of priority of ecological axis. In the case of an erroneous cable railway, it does not fall under the foregoing exceptional reason, and it does not constitute a ground for cutting the ecological axis due to noise due to the installation of an erroneous cable railway and the movement of cable cables, etc., but the Defendant did not take into account the

3) On March 21, 2015, the Intervenor requested KR to verify the economic feasibility of the instant project when installing a red cableway on or around June 2015 and did not include verification of the social cost convenience analysis on the 16th report (Evidence A No. 40-2) prepared and sent by KR on or around June 2015. However, the Intervenor neglected the economic feasibility of the instant project by submitting 52 report (Evidence A No. 41-2) altered as the verification was made on the said item. Furthermore, the original report itself of KS did not reflect the cost of environmental damage reviewed from the recent environmental economic perspective, and it did not make the project operation of this case’s calculation of the number of days of operation of cable car and monthly use rate due to regular absence, etc., the charges of children and the elderly subject to discount, the calculation of operating expenses, the inclusion of corporate tax, etc., which led to the decrease in the economic feasibility of the instant project, and thus, did not reduce the economic feasibility of the instant project.

4) According to the instant business plan, luscing cable railwayss are installed as a one-line automatic circulation cable on the basis of six props. In the case of the first-line type, the side of the first-line type only can be easily shakened by wind, and safety problems arise if the distance between the props is 500 meters or more, and the distance between the props is 500 meters or more. However, in the case of luscing cable, the installation of a lusc cableway has a serious defect in safety, and if the installation of a lusc cable is supplemented to correct it to a double-line or a three-line type, the instant business would become an owner of the instant project, and there would be no economic feasibility. The Defendant made a wrong judgment on the basis of the erroneous premise.

5) The section 2.93 km of the route of this case constitutes a nature conservation district in a park under Article 18 of the former Natural Parks Act, and the section 2.93 km of the route of this case constitutes not only the nature conservation district in a park under Article 18 of the former Natural Parks Act, but also the area subject to review on impacts of preserving cultural properties under Article 36(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, such as 'Nansansansan Mountain Natural Protection Area' under the Gangwon-do Ordinance on the Protection of Cultural Properties, 'Nuclear Area' under Article 7 of the Baekdudaegan, 'Nuclear Area Protection under the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act' under the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, and ' Mountainous District for Public Use' under Article 5 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act. However, the intervenor distorteds and distorted the birth of the route of this case, plant, animal, and mountain, and the defendant also issued a disposition of this case with the knowledge of its illegality in light of the environmental impact assessment report submitted by the intervenor after the disposition of this case (No 6) and 17th amendment.

6) The Defendant issued the instant disposition only on the basis that the Defendant extended the installation distance of cable railways from 2 km to 5 km under Article 14-2 [Attachment Table 1-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Natural Parks Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 22420, Oct. 2, 2010. The Defendant did not fully take into account the following: (a) whether the instant route conforms to the instant review criteria; (b) the inevitable nature of damage caused by the installation of lucul cable; and (c) the degree of anticipated damage; and (d) there was no possibility of seeking measures to strengthen the response to the instant disposition; or (b) the reservation system for restricting the use of luculation as asserted by the Intervenor, compared with the previous proposal of the National Park Planning that was rejected by the Intervenor, the instant amendment did not seem to comply with the review criteria, etc., but the Defendant rendered the instant disposition contrary to the aforementioned doubtful grounds.

4. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

5. Determination as to the primary claim by the plaintiffs (whether the primary claim is null and void due to the violation of the Baekdudaegan)

Article 7 (1) of the Baekdudaegan provides that no one shall construct buildings, install artificial structures or other facilities, change the form and quality of land, gather soil and rocks, or perform any other act similar thereto within the core district of the protected area, except in any of the following cases, and subparagraph 2 of Article 7 provides that "the construction of facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree for public use, such as roads, railroads, and rivers" is one of the types of acts permitted. Article 8 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Baekdudaegan provides that "facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 7 (1) 2 of the Act means any of the following facilities established by the State, a local government, or an enterprise in which the government has invested at least 50 percent of the paid-in capital, and subparagraph 1 provides that "road, railroad, river, track, or transmission tower:"

In light of the language and form of the above provision, Article 7(1)2 of the Baekdudaegan Act prohibits, in principle, the construction of buildings or the installation of artificial structures in the core district of the Protection Area where the pertinent project site belongs, but it can be deemed that Article 8(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Baekdudaegan provides for the scope, such as the type of buildings or installations allowed to be constructed or installed exceptionally, as an exception, in a limited manner. Therefore, Article 7(1) of the Baekdudaegan provides that the term “inducing necessity” part of the “public facilities” as referred to in Article 7(1) of the Baekdudaegan Act is a part of the subsequent “public facilities” and does not provide separate requirements

In other words, if it falls under the scope of buildings or facilities listed in Article 8 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Baekdudaegan Act, it can be deemed that it falls under the scope of "public facilities" stipulated in Article 7 (1) 2 of the Baekdudaegan Act, such as roads, railroads, and rivers. Thus, as long as it falls under the "tracing facilities" listed in Article 8 (1) of the Baekdudaegan Enforcement Decree, it should not be deemed that it does not fall under the buildings or facilities prohibited from construction and installation under Article 8 (1) of the Baekdudaegan Act, at least inasmuch as it is the "tracing facilities", which are the types listed in Article 8 (1) of the Baekdudaegan Enforcement Decree

Therefore, it is not a "facilities necessary for luscing lusculation" under Article 7 (1) of the Baekdudaegan Act.

Despite being a facility prohibited from installation, the plaintiffs' primary argument that the disposition in this case becomes null and void due to a serious unlawful interpretation of the above law by the defendant is without merit (However, even if it falls under the category of buildings or facilities that can be constructed under Article 7 (1) 2 of the Baekdudaegan Act, it is merely the possibility that such construction or installation may be permitted, and it does not always mean that the construction or installation of the pertinent building or facilities shall be permitted, and whether to allow the construction or installation thereof shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances based on individual buildings or facilities. As to the plaintiffs' preliminary argument about the defendant's non-exercise, deviation, or abuse of discretionary power in relation to the necessity of installation of erroneous cable railways in relation to the Baekdudaegan Act, this shall also be examined as follows.

6. Determination as to the procedural illegality

A. Whether the composition of the Park Committee of this case is unlawful

1) Articles 12(1) and 12(2) of the former Natural Parks Act provide that park planning concerning national parks shall be decided by the Defendant, while determining park planning, ① the opinion of the competent Mayor/Do Governor, ② the consultation with the head of an autonomous administrative agency among the relevant parties, ③ the procedures for deliberation of the National Park Committee shall be followed in order. Furthermore, according to Articles 9(1) and 10 subparag. 3 of the former Natural Parks Act and Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Natural Parks Act, the National Park Committee established a National Park Committee under the Ministry of Environment and deliberated on matters concerning the decision and abolition of park planning. Around the date of the instant disposition, the National Park Committee had to be composed of not more than 20 members and special members including one chairperson and one vice-chairperson.

In addition, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 21 and evidence Nos. 4 and 5 of the National Park Committee Operational Rule, Article 5(2) of the Committee provides that "the meeting of the Committee shall be held by attendance of a majority of the incumbent members, and the decision shall be made with the consent of a majority of members present," the Park Committee of this case shall be 10 government delegates, and nine civilian members were present at the Park Committee of this case. The participating government delegates of the relevant departments shall have the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Ministry of Government Administration, the Ministry of National Defense, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs established the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as a integration of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation and the Maritime Affairs in February 2008, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs established a comprehensive plan for the development of the East Coast Zone, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and Fisheries, as part of the Ministry of Korea.

2) According to the above facts, although the project of this case is basically related to the Seoaksan National Park, the project of this case located near the east of the eastsan National Park is located, and water pollution pollution of the ice, Yangyangyang National Park, which may be caused by the implementation of the project of this case, can ultimately affect the east of the eastyang National Park, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries shall also be deemed to be a government agency related to the agenda of whether to install the Masan National Park.

Furthermore, even if the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries cannot be seen as the Ministry related to the instant business, it does not affect the fact that the instant park committee’s resolution on the instant amendment satisfies the quorum even except for the members belonging to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. Moreover, even if the former National Park Committee has a custom that has passed a resolution on the agenda in the unanimous place, the existence of such custom does not constitute unlawful deliberation and resolution of the instant park committee meeting the quorum requirements stipulated in the Operational Rules of the National Park Committee. The Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Article 6(1) of the Regulations on Operation of the National Park Committee, which provides for detailed matters necessary for the operation, etc. of the National Park Committee under Article 9 of the former Natural Parks Act and Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Park Committee, shall, in principle, convene meetings of the Committee and notify each member of the date, time, venue, and theme of the meeting in advance by no later than 15 days before the date of the meeting; however, Article 6(3) of the Regulations on Operation of the National Park Committee provides that "no meeting shall be convened urgently; however, the same shall not apply in case of an urgent meeting;" and Article 6(3) provides that "the agenda and materials necessary for the deliberation shall be distributed by no later than seven days before the date of the meeting."

However, for the deliberation of the instant amendment, there is no dispute between the parties on the fact that the review report of the private committee, which is one of the most important meeting materials, was distributed to the members, not seven days prior to the date of the meeting at the instant park committee held on August 28, 2015, but only at the day of the meeting.

2) However, the term of circulation of meeting materials is not prescribed by the Act or the Enforcement Decree, but by the regulations of the National Park Committee corresponding to administrative rules as administrative rules. However, even if an administrative disposition violates the internal guidelines without any legal nature, such disposition is not unlawful solely on the ground that it conforms to the requirements set forth in the internal guidelines, etc., and such disposition cannot be deemed lawful on the ground that it does not necessarily conform to the requirements set forth in the internal guidelines. Whether such a disposition is lawful ought to be determined by taking into account the overall circumstances based on the relevant statutory provisions, such as the Act binding on the general public, rather than on the basis of whether it conforms to the requirements set out in such internal guidelines, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du29281, Nov. 28, 2013; 2015Du40248, Jun.

In light of the above legal principles, even if the procedure was conducted in violation of the regulations of the National Park Committee in the course of deliberation by the Park Committee, which is a procedure that must necessarily undergo prior to the disposition of this case, the determination of whether the disposition of this case can be deemed an unlawful ground for the disposition of this case by comprehensively examining the contents and purport of the relevant laws and regulations concerning the operation of the National Park Committee, and all other circumstances.

3) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances revealed by Eul based on the overall purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 7-1 and 7-2, even if a review report by the private committee was submitted on the day on which the park committee was held, such fact alone cannot be deemed unlawful. The plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit.

① Article 6(3) of the Regulations on Operation of the National Park Committee provides that “The materials necessary for the agenda for deliberation and the deliberation shall be distributed not later than seven days prior to the date on which the meeting is held.” However, this provision provides that “The same shall not apply in cases of an urgent convocation of a meeting.” This provision takes into account the existence of inevitable reasons for not distributing the materials necessary for the agenda for deliberation and the deliberation by not later than seven days prior to the date on which the meeting is held. Therefore, even in cases where the materials for deliberation are not distributed by not later than seven days prior to the date on which the meeting is held, if it is acknowledged that the materials for deliberation were not distributed due to due cause or due diligence despite the fact that the materials for deliberation were distributed late, and the violation of the distribution period under the above provision did not affect the results of the deliberation, it cannot be deemed that the results of the deliberation were unlawful even if the materials necessary for the

② According to the "Procedure for the Promotion of the Cable Railroad Pilot Project for National Parks", in the course of deliberating on the project of this case, a private expert committee examines the agenda before the National Park Committee examines the project of this case, and the National Park Committee is required to conduct an in-depth examination based on the review results, on-site inspection, etc. In this case, since the preparation of a review report by the private committee has been completed on the day before the date of holding the Park Committee of this case, the distribution of relevant materials was delayed, and it was not distributed late by intention or negligence on the side of the Park Committee of this case.

③ Members of the Private Specialized Committee, who prepared a review report of the Private Committee, attended the private committee and provided detailed explanation on the contents and reasons for the preparation thereof. Members of the Park Committee of this case participated in the field investigation on the surrounding areas of the instant routes conducted on August 2, 2015 to August 3, 2015, and August 24, 2015 before the aforementioned review report was prepared. The instant amendment differs from the 1,2012 amendment bill. However, from around 2012, discussions have been conducted to install luck railway. Other materials, such as the amendment bill of this case and the natural environmental impact review report of this case, were already distributed to members of the Park Committee of this case, so it could sufficiently grasp the basic facts, problems, and issues.

④ On August 28, 2015, the Park Committee deliberated three agenda items reported on the day from 10:0 to 19:00, and, unlike the two agenda items resolved without different opinions, there was a significant debate about the amendment of the instant case only for a long time, and eventually, the Committee’s opinions were gathered in the direction of making conditional resolutions by attaching seven conditions, such as the instant disposition. In short, the part that was not narrow until the end was reflected in the resolution’s additional condition, and was then resolved conditional resolutions by 12 with the consent of 17 members who participated in the voting. In the process, the review report of the Private Committee was distributed on the day and its review time was insufficient (Evidence 21).7.

A. Relevant legal principles

Administrative plans are established as an activity criteria to realize certain order at a certain point in the future by integrating and coordinating relevant administrative means in order to achieve a specific administrative objective based on professional and technical judgments on administration. Since relevant Acts and subordinate statutes only provide abstract administrative goals and procedures, and do not provide for the contents of administrative plans, administrative bodies have relatively broad freedom in formulating and determining a specific administrative plan. Furthermore, accurately predicting the existence and degree of efficiency at the stage of establishing the administrative plan is bound to have limitations due to scientific and technological characteristics, and thus, it is necessary to respect it so long as there is no justification and objectivity in the judgment of the administrative body on the feasibility of business. Provided, That such freedom of formation held by the administrative body is not unlimited, not only between public and private interests, but also between public and private interests, and thus, it is necessary to properly compare the administrative plan with each other. Thus, if the administrative body fails to provide benefits at all in formulating the administrative plan and fails to provide for specific provisions regarding the contents of the administrative plan, it is justifiable to determine the objectivity of 201, 2015.

In addition, when examining whether an administrative agency’s discretionary authority is abused or abused with respect to development activities that are likely to damage or pollute the environment, the determination should be made carefully by comprehensively taking into account the legislative purport of various regulations on the utilization status and balance of rights and interests among interested parties who have conflicting interests with those of the relevant region, such as living environment, and the protection of environmental rights. Therefore, the determination and determination should be made by stipulating that ① all citizens shall have the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment, and the State and citizens shall endeavor to preserve the environment as fundamental rights under the Constitution (Article 35(1)), and at the same time, imposing an obligation on the State and citizens to endeavor to preserve the environment. ② Under the constitutional ideology of the Framework Act on Environmental Conservation, the determination of the administrative agency’s initial and duty to endeavor to preserve the environment, as well as the State and local governments, and the business entity’s duty are specifically determined (Articles 1, 4, 5, and 6), and the fact that an administrative agency’s assessment and determination is clearly unreasonable or unreasonable (see Article 20).5).

B. Determination

1) As seen earlier, the content of the instant disposition is conditional permission on the condition that a cableway should be installed in the Seosan National Park, and its location is that it should be the route of this case. In other words, the instant disposition is a disposition of the first stage among several dispositions that should undergo the process of the instant project, not the specific contents of the instant disposition, but the Defendant approved the instant amendment by adding the conditions to the instant disposition. In addition, even after the instant disposition, the details of the instant amendment are continuously supplemented and modified according to the instant administrative agency’s request for improvement of the conditions attached to the instant disposition or the review criteria, etc., and it is difficult to determine whether the instant disposition satisfies the requirements, such as the conditions attached to the instant disposition, or the instant review criteria, etc., and it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant disposition is a matter that should be practically controlled or modified in the course of operating the Osan National Park, and that it is possible to adjust or change the contents of the instant project, or that it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant environmental pollution-based assessment is in conflict with one another’s.

Therefore, in determining the illegality of the instant disposition, on the premise that the details of the instant change are likely to be supplemented and modified in the future, the Defendant’s discretionary decision on the requirements that need to be predicted about the present situation and ripple effects, such as: (a) the Defendant’s failure to conduct a balance of interests while rendering the instant disposition; (b) omission of matters to be included in the subject of consideration of the balance of interests; or (c) lack legitimacy and objectivity; (d) lack of justification and objectivity; or (e) risk of environmental pollution or economic feasibility assessment of business.

It shall be based on whether there are circumstances, such as where the contents are considerably lacking rationality or are clearly contrary to the principle of equity or proportionality.

2) Based on the above legal principles, comprehensively considering the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of the pleadings, even if there are somewhat insufficient or unclear parts as argued by the Plaintiffs, it would be possible to supplement the amendment in the direction that conforms to the review guidelines, etc. of this case at the specific project implementation stage that will be followed. Therefore, if specific circumstances exist to deem the conditions presented in the instant disposition in the process of implementing the instant project or that the review guidelines, etc. of this case are not complied with in the process of implementing the instant project in the future, it is possible to dispute the pertinent disposition at the stage. However, in the current stage where the scientific and technological nature of all of the arguments or concerns of the Plaintiffs are considered, even if it is difficult to conclude that the supplementary measures, etc. presented by the Intervenor are not practicable or ineffective, and it is difficult to deem that there is an error of law that the Defendant deviates from or abused discretionary power by omitting the balancing of interests or remarkably wrong the balancing of interests. This part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

A) Article 18(2)1(b) of the former Natural Parks Act provides that “the construction of minimum park facilities and park projects according to the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree” as one of the criteria for acts permitted in a nature conservation district in a park. Article 14-2(2) [Attachment 1-2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Natural Parks Act provides that “the construction of facilities and park projects according to the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree” refers to the minimum park facilities and park projects permitted in a nature conservation district in a park, which are not more than 5 kilometers and not more than 50 people in the case of cable ways among transportation and transport facilities. According to the language and systematic interpretation of the above Act, Article 18(2)1 of the former Natural Parks Act provides for the types of acts exceptionally permitted in a nature conservation district in a park that prohibits any act in principle, and thus, it does not necessarily constitute “the construction of facilities within a nature conservation district in a park” and “the installation of facilities within a park within the scope of 50 or less people under Article 18(2)1) of the Act.

In addition, in the case of this case, the defendant seems to have appropriately exercised discretion, such as examining the following specific matters:

B) The main sentence of Article 23-2 of the former Natural Parks Act stipulates the principle of priority of ecological axis that no facilities or structures prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as roads, railroads, tracks, telecommunications facilities and energy supply facilities, etc. shall pass through by cutting the ecological axis and ecological corridor in a natural park. However, the proviso recognizes the exception that where the head of the relevant administrative agency submits inevitable reasons and evidentiary materials to the park management agency for minimum facilities or structures which he/she deems inevitable to be installed due to regional conditions, they may pass through by cutting the ecological axis and ecological corridor.

In the case of cable railwayss, the height of the props is 6.3m or 28.6m or more (in the case of clord cable railwayss, the height of the props shall be 6.3m or 6.3m or 28.6m or more). Although the ecological axis and passage are not cut physically, noise or vibration caused by the installation and operation of cable railways constitutes an element which can be the cause of ecological axis cutting. However, according to the environmental impact assessment of this case, the noise from construction equipment, helicopter, construction machinery, etc. during the period in which the installation of clord cables is carried out on the route of this case may temporarily leave habitats, but it is thought that the mountain may be returned again after the completion of construction in accordance with the revolving nature of the mountain, and in light of the cases of similar cable railways after the completion of construction, it is difficult to conclude that the ecological axis is installed around the designated stop and props that meet the environmental target of 20m or 50m or more, and thus, it is difficult to set up as an ecological corridor of this case.

C) As seen earlier, the instant review criteria, etc. provide that “for the verification of economic feasibility, a project undertaker shall submit a cost-oriented analysis report including the review of economic feasibility, such as operating profit of the pertinent project, and the analysis of social cost convenience, and obtain verification from an external specialized institution designated by the relevant park management authority.” However, even though the original intervenor failed to undergo the verification of “tin for social cost convenience” in the report on economic feasibility analysis of V, the entire report on economic feasibility analysis was compiled as if it was verified by KR and submitted to the Defendant (Evidence No. 41-2) as if it was verified by KR, and the part which was not verified again was submitted separately, and two public officials in charge were found guilty of the said act by means of the alteration of private documents and the exercise of altered private documents.

However, according to the reasoning of Gap evidence 21, Eul evidence 25, Eul evidence 39's evidence 2, and W testimony and arguments, it was found that the plaintiff's testimony was not based on the results of the provisional analysis of the economic feasibility of the project of this case to be verified on March 31, 2015 and it was not based on the results of the analysis of the local economy x the production inducement effect, employment inducement effect, added value-added effect, etc. It was not based on the results of the analysis of the environment improvement x the results of the analysis of the "The cost of the project of this case" which was not based on the results of the analysis of the "The cost of the project of this case" x the cost of the environment improvement x the cost of the project of this case which was not based on the results of the analysis of the "The cost of the project of this case" excluding the cost of environmental improvement - the cost of the project of this case - the cost of environmental improvement - the cost of the project of this case - the results of the analysis 2015.

According to the above facts, while analyzing the economic feasibility of the project in this case, the initial V stated some of the contents that can be seen as part of the analysis of social costs and benefits. However, KS respondeded to the analysis of financial convenience rather than the analysis of social cost convenience without any particular reference to this part, but it separately calculated ‘the cost ratio for convenience in the case of applying the Environmental Preservation Fund' as a result of the verification. It can be seen as the economic analysis considering the accumulation of the Environmental Report Fund that can be actually disbursed as the cost of environmental damage as the cost of environmental damage. Thus, it is difficult to view that the social costs and benefits analysis by the above method are not entirely reflected in the result of the Environmental Improvement. Furthermore, if it is necessary to measure the CVM estimate value, etc. in the process of the project in this case, it is difficult to supplement the social costs and benefits analysis by the above method, and it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiffs' assertion on the economic feasibility of cable operation days and monthly discount rate and the fee discount rate of persons subject to non-permanent use, corporate tax reduction and non-payment of the operating cost, etc.

D) According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 16, 21, and Eul evidence Nos. 16-3 and the entire arguments, in the case of a pro rata cable railway, the prop interval is possible from a maximum of 0.5 km to a maximum of 2 km. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the installation of a pro rata cable railway is impossible in spite of various safety strengthening technologies being introduced to ensure safety, which are currently planned by the intervenor, and even if it is a technical and detailed problem, it seems that there are various complementary methods if it is found that it is insufficient in detail at the project progress stage.

E) According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 17 and 66, the environmental impact review report of this case and the environmental impact assessment report of this case concerning the degree of environmental damage or the number of animals and plants subject to protection, project costs, etc., are acknowledged. However, as a result, the environmental impact assessment report of this case was reflected in the contents of the disposition of this case which was conducted on a conditional basis according to the review result of the park committee after the submission of the draft of this case, and it seems that the number and scope of the investigation at the time of the environmental impact assessment of this case were increased compared to the time of the environmental impact assessment of this case, and it was not revealed that the intervenor intentionally fabricated the contents of the environmental impact assessment report of this case. Ultimately, it cannot be deemed that the environmental impact review of this case was illegally conducted, or that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the basis of the circumstance that the intervenor intentionally fabricated the contents of the assessment report of this case.

F) Even if the review criteria, etc. of this case do not correspond to the laws and regulations having external binding power, it is recognized that the contents were prepared through the consultation of experts over several years, and its expertise is recognized, and in terms of consistency and equity in exercising discretionary power, the defendant needs to comply with this and deliberate on and take measures for cable railway business.

However, even if the contents of the amendment of this case do not fully meet the review criteria, etc. of this case, as seen earlier, the intervenor has determined the route of this case by analyzing and examining the 16 routes as alternative plans based on the contents of the amendment that was rejected twice the above, and comparing the 15 routes of this case reviewed by the intervenor in the process of determining the amendment of this case, it seems that the route of this case seems to meet the review criteria of this case, and the intervenor has made efforts to make up for some deficiencies, and the terms and conditions attached to the disposition of this case or the review criteria of this case are not observed in the future, if the conditions attached to the disposition of this case or the review criteria of this case are not observed, the intervenor may control the contents of the project of this case by presenting the defendant or the defendant, who is the authority to permit the implementation of national parks under Article 20 (1) of the former Natural Parks Act, or the National Park Corporation entrusted or entrusted with the authority of this case by the intervenor, which is the authority of the intervenor in charge of this case's implementation of the project of this case. Furthermore or joint management.

In addition, most of the project areas of this case are located in the Seosan National Park, which is a nature conservation district in the park and have great conservation value. However, other public interests, such as the necessity of preserving the natural environment to the maximum extent possible and preserving it as a global cultural resources, and the need to guarantee the people's right to enjoy cultural heritage, including mobile-disadvantageds, have been continued for more than several years. As such, in the situation of conflict between public interest and public interest, the Intervenor selected the routes of this case through a thorough investigation and submitted the amendment of this case, and the Defendant may be deemed to have taken the disposition of this case by carefully comparing and balancing the conflicting public interest, etc., so it cannot be deemed that the legitimacy and objectivity of the judgment of the Defendant are not recognized to the extent that the Defendant cannot respect the disposition of this case, even if considering the international standards claimed by the Plaintiffs or the cases of other countries, etc.

8. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of Plaintiffs 24. through 56., and 58. through 792, among the lawsuit of this case, is dismissed as it is unlawful. The main claim and the conjunctive claim of Plaintiffs 1 through 23, and 57, among the lawsuits of this case, are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

presiding judge, judge Park Jong-yang

Judges Kim Gin-A

Judges Choi Jae-in

1) Attached Table 1 Serial 378(A) and 462(B) withdraw the lawsuit, but, for convenience, maintain the existing sequences in the above list of the plaintiffs.

2) As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the said 16 Plaintiffs were minors, and no evidence was submitted to acknowledge the delegation of the power of attorney to the said Plaintiffs’ law firm Dodam and the attorney belonging to the law firm Do governor.

3) Prior to the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 22420 on October 1, 2010, installation of cable railwayss was allowed not more than 2 kilometers in [Attachment Table 1-2] and not more than 50 persons.