The appeal of this case is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant supplementary intervenors.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reason why our court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[A evidence and evidence Nos. 9 and 8 provides that the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that there was some defective parts in the environmental impact assessment conducted through the Thai Environment Co., Ltd., but this does not constitute “cases where the Plaintiff obtained approval of the project plan by fraudulent or other illegal means” as provided for in Article 31 subparag. 1 of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, beyond sanctions against the Thai Environment Co., Ltd., which conducted the environmental impact assessment. Rather, according to the results of a comprehensive review of environmental research conducted several times by the original Regional Environment Office (Evidence No. 6 and No. 4), it may be recognized that the instant project did not have any particular difficulty in obtaining approval of the project plan even if the initial accurate environmental impact assessment was conducted. However, in light of these circumstances, even if the Plaintiff and the Intervenor raised an environmental impact assessment, it cannot be deemed that there was no other evidence to acknowledge any error in the approval of the project plan that the Plaintiff abused the defects in the environmental impact assessment as seen earlier, as well as that there was no other evidence to acknowledge any error in the Plaintiff’s forest construction plan.