The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and its modification in this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following two paragraphs, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The court’s additional determination (the plaintiff’s assertion) was made by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy on the basis of Article 2 subparag. 2(b) of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act. The above provision should be interpreted as not being applicable to cases where electric power resource developer has installed electric power source facilities first without securing the license for land, etc.

In addition, the above project approval disposition is against the principle of proportionality and constitutes abuse of the right to use public use as it seriously infringes on the plaintiff's interest by modifying the original plan without reasonable grounds.

Therefore, the approval of a project is illegal, and as a result, it is illegal.

[1] Unless there is any circumstance that the approval of a project is deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, the adjudication on use cannot be sought as cancellation or invalidation on the ground of its illegality.

In this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit since the business approval disposition cannot be deemed to be null and void only with the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff.

In addition, Article 2 of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act provides that "the business of installing and improving power source facilities" in item (a) is defined as "the business of installing and improving power source facilities", but Article 2 subparagraph 2 (b) of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act separately provides "the business of acquiring the land, etc. installed or securing the right to use

According to this, the plaintiff's assertion that Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act does not apply to the case where it is intended to secure the right to use after the completion of the installation of electric power source facilities, is against the language of the above provision and the legislative intent expressed therein.