[1] In a case where the Minister of National Defense approved the national defense and military installations implementation plan for the construction of Jeju Naval Base, conducted environmental impact assessment and approved the modification of the above implementation plan reflecting the result, the case holding that there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the initial approval disposition even if the approval of modification was made

[2] Where the Minister of National Defense approved the national defense and military installations implementation plan for the construction of Jeju Sea Base, and then approved the modification of the above implementation plan based on the results of environmental impact assessment, the case holding that the first approval disposition is null and void on the ground that there are significant and apparent defects that did not go through environmental impact assessment as to the project subject to environmental impact assessment, but the above approval approval disposition cannot be deemed as independent from the first approval disposition, and the defect in the first approval disposition cannot be deemed as being succeeded to the above approval disposition

[1] The case holding that in a case where the Minister of National Defense approved the implementation plan for the construction of the Jeju Naval Base, and conducted environmental impact assessment and approved the modification of the above implementation plan based on the results thereof, the above approval disposition is not a disposition extinguishing the first approval disposition, but a part of its contents should be deemed to have been modified while maintaining the approval disposition, and the Minister of National Defense has the nature of a kind of authoritative disposition, and the above disposition is not a completion of the purpose of the disposition itself, but a series of procedures and dispositions based on the national defense and military installations project are conducted on the premise that the above disposition is valid and is not a valid one, and therefore, the legal effect of all dispositions based on the premise that the above disposition is revoked or invalidated shall be affected if it is confirmed, notwithstanding the approval disposition for modification, there is a legal interest in seeking a nullification of the first approval disposition.

[2] Where the Minister of National Defense approved the implementation plan for the construction of the Jeju Naval Base, conducted the environmental impact assessment and approved the modification of the above implementation plan based on the results thereof, the case holding that the first approval disposition is legitimate since the Minister of National Defense completed the procedures for consultation on environmental impact assessment and completed the procedure for consultation on the first environmental impact assessment, the defect of the first approval disposition cannot be seen as independent of the first approval disposition due to the new approval disposition on the premise that the defect of the first approval disposition exists in the first approval disposition, and the first approval disposition cannot be seen as being independent of the first approval disposition on the premise that the first approval disposition remains effective, and that the latter disposition cannot be seen as a defect in the execution of environmental impact assessment, etc., on the ground that the first approval disposition was made by supplementing the defect existing in the first approval disposition, and that the latter disposition cannot be seen as a defect in the first approval disposition on the first approval disposition after the headquarters started the environmental impact assessment on the project site after the first approval disposition, and submitted an environmental impact assessment report reflecting the opinion presented in the process

[1] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 4 of the Act on National Defense and Military Installations Projects, Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff 1 and 437 (Law Firm Yang Jae, Attorneys Choi Byung-mo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of National Defense (excluding the Government Law Firm Corporation, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Pacific, Attorneys Kang Yong-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

May 27, 2010

1. On January 21, 2009, the defendant confirmed that a disposition to approve an implementation plan for a national defense and military installations project conducted by the defendant with respect to the implementation plan for the Jeju Naval Base Construction Project is invalid.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining main claims and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

3. The 40% of the costs of the lawsuit, including the costs of the supplementary participation, shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and 60% by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, respectively.

The disposition of Paragraph (1) shall be revoked in addition to Paragraph (1) of this Article, and the defendant confirmed that the approval of the modification of the implementation plan for the national defense and military installations project conducted by the defendant on March 15, 2010 is the primary invalidation, and the approval of the modification shall be revoked in preliminary order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Ministry of National Defense decided to construct wharfs and command and support facilities for the accommodation of the air power units in Jeju-do for the efficient surveillance and protection activities for the Jeju-nam Interference Station and marine traffic, and around December 1993 at the 156 Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Ministry of National Defense reflected the Jeju Sea Base Project Plan in the "National Defense Project Plan" around December 1995, the Ministry of National Defense reflected the Jeju Sea Base Project Plan in the "1997 through 2001". The Ministry of National Defense, even after coloring the project site in Jeju-do, temporarily suspended the project due to the water in Jeju-do, but around April 2005, the Ministry of National Defense, through the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, which is an affiliated organization of the Ministry of National Defense, announced the Jeju Sea Base Construction Policy on May 2006.

B. Around June 2006, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Governor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Governor”) constituted a naval base working team (T/F) and selected various coastal areas within Jeju-do as a candidate site, and analyzed the impact of Jeju Jeju naval base on the local community as of the end of 2006, and held a regional public forum, project explanation meeting (three times) from January 2007 to April 2007, and a meeting for the pros and cons council.

C. On April 24, 2007, the president of the Gangseo-gu Village consisting of residents of the Seocheon-dong, Seocheon-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, proposed the Jeju Do governor to attract the naval base. The Jeju Do governor accepted the proposal and finally announced the coast of Seocheon-do, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter referred to as the “Geocheon-si Village”) as the Jeju Maritime Base Construction Project Site.

D. On June 8, 2007, the Ministry of National Defense notified the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Governor of a project plan (hereinafter “the project in this case”) that the construction of harbor facilities by using the total area of 480,000 square meters (201,231 square meters, purchase 282,842 square meters) in the project site (hereinafter “the project site in this case”). On April 18, 2008, the Navy Chief of Staff (the Navy Chief of Staff), who is the project implementer, started the preliminary examination (environmental quality, land animal, vegetation, vegetation, and marine animals and plants) four times from August 2007 to March 208, and submitted a preliminary examination report on the preliminary examination of environmental feasibility to the Defendant.

E. Around June 2008, the Defendant requested the Minister of Environment to consult on the preliminary examination of environmental feasibility, reflecting the results of the consultation, and on December 26, 2008, the Defendant notified the Minister of Environment of the announcement on the design of the harbor project on January 21, 2009 pursuant to Article 4 of the National Defense and Military Installations Projects Act (hereinafter “National Defense Projects Act”). On the same day, the Defendant publicly notified the following as the Ministry of National Defense’s announcement under Article 2009-1.

1. Table 1. The name of the project implementer: The Navy Chief of Staff: the outline of the national defense and military installations project; 3. The Jeju Navy Base Construction Project: the execution unit and its address on November 1, 2008 and on December 30, 2010: (Omission) the detailed items of the land to be expropriated or used as the project site; 6. The detailed items of the land to be expropriated or used as the project site: Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Seopo-dong (number omitted) and 284,217 square meters;

F. The Defendant acquired approximately 45% of the land through consultation to secure the project site from the date immediately after the instant approval was issued, and completed the compensation procedure against 90% of the households eligible for fishery compensation. Meanwhile, the Korea Coast Guard under the jurisdiction of the Defendant selected the contractor for a construction project that installs breakwaters and ancillary airspaces, etc. in the form of a package deal tender. The Defendant’s supplementary participant corporation selected the contractor for a construction project that installs breakwaters and ancillary airspaces, etc. on the 1st section of the Jeju Naval Base Base Terminal Construction Project, and the Defendant’s supplementary participant corporation was selected as each contractor on the 2nd section of the Jeju Naval Base Base Terminal Construction Project (hereinafter “Defendant’s supplementary intervenor”).

G. From November 2008 to March 2009, the Navy Headquarters had the residents opposing the implementation of the project in this case and the environmental impact assessment companies selected respectively on the side of the Navy jointly conduct an ecosystem investigation. Unlike this, it conducted an environmental impact assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act with respect to the project site in this case on the first half of April 7, 2009, respectively, submitted a draft environmental impact assessment report (No. B evidence 18-1) to the Defendant, Jeju Do Governor, and Seopopo City Mayor on April 24, 2009, and held a resident public hearing on June 24, 2009.

H. On July 7, 2009, the Maritime Headquarters submitted an environmental impact assessment report (Evidence B No. 18-2) supplemented and prepared by reflecting the opinions on the status quo presented in the process of gathering the opinions on the draft environmental impact assessment (such as additional investigation of marine ecosystems, investigation of black and girine habitats, site weather investigation, soil environmental investigation, and grasping the characteristics of sea water), and the Defendant requested the Jeju Do Governor to request an environmental impact assessment on Jeju Do Governor on July 8, 2009 pursuant to Article 29 of the Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Development of Free International City.

I. On December 21, 2009, the Jeju Do Governor requested the defendant to supplement the deficiencies of nine items, including air quality, water quality, marine environment, soil, topography, geological features, animal and plant features, eco-friendly resources circulation, landscape, industry, etc. (Evidence B 24). The defendant supplemented and prepares the environmental impact assessment report by reflecting the contents of consultation with the Jeju Do Governor (Evidence B 18-3 and 4), and let the defendant joining the defendant, the contractor, reflect the contents of the environmental impact assessment report in the working design (Evidence B 26).

(j) Upon the completion of the consultation procedure on environmental impact assessment around the end of December 2009, the Navy Chief of Staff added matters related to the design of a harbor project that reflects the results of environmental impact assessment and the results of environmental impact assessment to the contents of the implementation plan, ② extension of the implementation period, ③ modification of the implementation plan of this case to the Defendant on January 27, 2010, including modification and addition of the right to compensation, filed an application for modification of the implementation plan of this case with the Defendant on March 15, 2010 (hereinafter “instant modification approval”). On March 17, 2010, the Defendant publicly announced the following as the Ministry of National Defense’s notice No. 2010-10.

A. Change in Table 4. Change in the Schedule 4. Change in the main text. The results of the environmental impact assessment consultation shall be reflected in the design drawing. The change in the implementation period of the project: November 1, 2008 and December 30, 2010 = Change in the>

[Based on Recognition: Evidence No. 1-1, Evidence No. 2-1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 9, evidence No. 10, evidence No. 1, 2, evidence No. 10, evidence No. 10, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4-1, 2, evidence No. 5-1 through 11, Eul evidence No. 6, evidence No. 7-1 through 10, Eul evidence No. 8, evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 14-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 16-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 17-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 18-2, Eul evidence No. 3, evidence No. 2-1, 3-2, Eul evidence No. 6, evidence No. 3-2, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 5-1, 3-1, and 4-2, evidence No.

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Main safety defense and judgment (as to the approval disposition of this case)

A. Main Safety Defenses

After the approval disposition of this case, the Defendant and the Intervenor filed an environmental impact assessment report with the Navy headquarters and submitted it to the Defendant, and the Defendant concluded an environmental impact assessment consultation with the Jeju Do Governor on several occasions, and subsequently made a new approval approval for the modification of this case by reflecting such contents of consultation. As such, the Plaintiffs asserted that seeking confirmation of the invalidation of the approval disposition of this case against the Defendant is unlawful because it constitutes a matter

B. Determination

However, even if there is a defect in the approval disposition of this case by filing a modified approval of this case, the defendant seems to have caused the modification disposition of this case under the premise that the previous series of procedures conducted by the defendant continue to exist effectively. The approval of this case is not a disposition extinguishing the approval disposition of this case, but a partial modification of its contents while maintaining the approval disposition of this case. Generally, the past legal relations cannot be the object of confirmation. However, as seen in the administrative relation like administrative disposition, if there are multiple legal relations premised on them, and it can be a way to seek confirmation of the past legal relations itself rather than seeking confirmation individually (see Supreme Court Decision 94Meu147 delivered on March 28, 1995). It is not a valid disposition of this case under the premise that the approval disposition of this case should be revoked or its effective disposition should be decided upon the premise that the above approval disposition of this case should be completed within the scope of 90 square meters or more (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu147 delivered on March 28, 1995).

4. Whether the approval disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs asserts that the instant disposition of recognition is null and void because there exists a significant and apparent defect for the following reasons.

(A) Although the instant project is subject to the environmental impact assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, the Defendant only submitted the preliminary examination of environmental impact, but did not submit the environmental impact assessment report and did not consult with the Jeju Do Governor.

(B) In the process of granting the approval of this case, the Defendant did not undergo sufficient procedures for gathering opinions from the residents of Gangnam Village who have a significant interest in the project of this case, and went beyond and abused discretion, by formally implementing the procedures for consultation with Jeju Do Governor pursuant to Article 299(1) of the Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Development of Free International City (hereinafter “Special Act on Jeju Special Self-Governing Province”), without considering the public interest of the project, the appropriateness of the location of the project and the feasibility of the implementation plan, as stipulated in Article 4(2) of the National

(C) In bad faith performed the pre-environmental review procedure, such as the selection of alternatives to be inevitably included in the pre-environmental review report and the results of the environmental review on them, the feasibility of location, and the omission of the content of planned feasibility.

(D) Although the construction of buildings in the above area was restricted unless the exception of the subparagraphs of Article 292(3) of the Special Act on Jeju Special Self-Governing Province is not applicable to the Gangwon Village, which is the area subject to the project of this case, although the construction of buildings in the above area was restricted, the Defendant issued the approval of this case before the cancellation of designation of the absolute conservation zone for the area subject to the river of this case, it was unlawful.

(2) Defendant and Defendant Intervenor’s assertion

(A) The instant approval disposition is lawful for the following reasons.

1) Although the area of the instant project site is about 480,00 square meters, the site is secured by reclaiming the sea level with the area of 200,000 square meters among them, and the actual content of the instant project is to purchase the remaining 280,000 square meters through consultation. As such, Article 4(3) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and Article 3(2) [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] subparag. 16(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act do not constitute “the case where the business area is more than 3

2) Even if a project falls under a project subject to environmental impact assessment, when considering the legislative purport of the relevant statutes, such as Article 16(1), Article 28(2), Article 23 [Attachment Table 1] 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, the period for submission of environmental impact assessment should be interpreted differently by the characteristics of each relevant project. However, in light of the fact that a disposition to approve an implementation plan is confirmed in a national defense and military installations project and a procedure to secure a project site is merely a procedure to secure a project site, and that a construction plan or a financing plan for the actual implementation of a project is determined after the basic design is established under the Construction Technology Management Act, the period for submission of environmental impact assessment shall be deemed not before the approval of the implementation

3) When the National Defense Project Act intends to approve an implementation plan to the Minister of National Defense, it shall consult with the head of the relevant central administrative agency and the head of local government, and when approving the implementation plan, it shall give public notice of the approval without delay to interested parties (Article 5(1), (2), and (4) of the National Defense Project Act). It does not stipulate the duty to listen to and reflect the public opinion on the approval itself of the implementation plan. Nevertheless, the defendant held a debate on the installation of the naval base of this case on two occasions from January 30, 207 to May 11, 207, and held a briefing session for the Jeju-do residents and the Jeju-do residents on two occasions from May 12, 2007, and after collecting sufficient public opinion such as conducting public opinion surveys for the residents of the Gangwon-si village as well as on May 12, 207, the approval disposition of this case has not been abused or abused.

4) The Navy Headquarters, while conducting the preliminary examination of environmental feasibility from June 2008 to October 1, 2008, did not deem that the preliminary examination of environmental feasibility was conducted in bad faith, since it selected Gangwon Village, Matern Village, and Matern Village and identified that all of the three above three issues are the habitats of the Soternho Lake that are protected as natural monuments or cultural properties, and compared and reviewed their impact.

5) The contents of the project subject to the instant approval disposition are limited to the acquisition and obstruction of land acquisition and compensation for fishery business, and such business contents do not constitute an act or legal effect prohibited within the absolute conservation area under the Jeju-do Special Autonomy Act.

B. Determination

(1) First, according to Article 4(3) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, and Article 3(2) [Attachment Table 1] 16(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the project area of which is more than 330,000 square meters among the national defense and military installations projects under Article 2(2) of the National Defense Project Act shall be a project subject to environmental impact assessment. As seen earlier, the main contents of the project are to construct harbor facilities in the project site with the area of 478,50 square meters as the project area. As such, it is apparent that the Defendant and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s primary procedure after the instant approval should be considered as the actual project area on the ground that the purchase of approximately 280,000 square meters among the above project area is to be conducted through consultation, but the Defendant’s assertion that the project of this case is to be conducted with respect to the construction of the site of this case, including the construction of a site of 280,000 square meters, shall not be examined as the whole project site of this case.

(A) The purport of Articles 1, 3, 6, 14, 16, and 28 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act is not to protect the environmental public interest related to the project in question by having a project that is required to conduct the environmental impact assessment implemented by a method that does not harm the environment, but to protect the individual interests of residents in the area subject to the environmental impact assessment that is expected to cause direct and serious environmental damage in question, compared to those of the residents in the area subject to the environmental impact assessment, who are able to live in a pleasant environment without being able to undergo the environmental impact assessment. However, if a disposition, such as approval, is taken without going through the environmental impact assessment, the opinion of the residents in the area subject to the environmental impact assessment in advance and based on the result, reflecting the contents of consultation with the Minister of Environment in advance is fundamentally obstructed, and if so, the legislative purport of the environmental impact assessment system cannot be achieved in order to prevent the environmental destruction and to maintain and create a pleasant environment, and the fundamental and fundamental interests of residents in the area subject to the environmental impact assessment cannot be objectively and objectively violated 360.

(B) On the other hand, Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Defense Project Act provides that the project implementer shall submit an application for the approval of the implementation plan for the national defense and military installations project, along with the drawings indicating the project plan, when applying for the approval of the plan for the implementation plan for the national defense and military installations project. (2) The period for submission of the written evaluation and the timing for request for consultation under Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Defense Project Act, which are not stipulated in the National Defense Project Act, shall be more than 30,000 square meters, shall not be included in the period for submission of the written evaluation and the timing for approval of the written evaluation under the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the National Defense Project Act. (3) In light of the above provisions of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Construction and Utilization of Sports Facilities and the Enforcement Decree of the National Defense Projects, are more than 260,000 square meters, among the sports facilities under Article 2(2)3 of the Act on the Construction and Utilization of Military Installations Projects.

(C) In light of the foregoing, the Maritime Headquarters only submitted the preliminary examination of environmental impact to the Defendant before the instant approval disposition, and submitted an environmental impact assessment report on the instant project, which constitutes an environmental impact assessment subject to environmental impact assessment, so that the Defendant may request the Jeju Governor to hold consultation on the assessment report. Nevertheless, as seen earlier, the Defendant entered into the instant approval disposition. Thus, the instant approval disposition constitutes null and void on the ground that there is a significant and apparent defect that did not undergo environmental impact assessment on the subject of environmental impact assessment.

(D) As to this, Defendant asserted to the effect that the defect of the approval disposition of this case was cured since an environmental impact assessment report on the project of this case was submitted after the approval disposition of this case, the consultation procedure between Defendant and Jeju Do governor was completed and the contents of consultation were reflected in the assessment report. However, the Defendant’s reflection of the contents of consultation with Jeju Do governor, etc. in the business plan by making the approval disposition of this case without going through prior consultation with the Jeju Do governor, etc., and it should be deemed that the direct and individual interests of neighboring residents, including the Plaintiffs, were fundamentally infringed. Thus, even if considering administrative purposes, such as the Jeju Obstruction Station to be achieved by the business plan of this case and the efficient surveillance and protection activities against marine traffic, the defect of the approval disposition of this case cannot be deemed to have seriously violated the relevant laws and regulations and objectively obvious. Accordingly, even if the Defendant requested consultation on the environmental impact assessment report of this case to the Minister of Environment on July 8, 2009 and completed such consultation on December 2, 2009, such defect can not be cured.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the approval disposition of this case constitutes invalid without examining the remaining arguments of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' assertion is with merit.

5. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant modified approval

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The defect of the above 4-A (1) of the approval disposition of this case is succeeded as it is to the approval disposition of this case, and therefore, the approval of this case is illegal for the same reason.

(2) Defendant and Defendant Intervenor’s assertion

(A) As long as the effect of the approval of this case was lost due to the approval of this case, there is no room for application of the approval of this case to the approval of this case's modification.

(B) Even if the plaintiffs' claims were to be asserted that the same defect as the approval disposition of this case exists, an environmental impact assessment procedure is completed and an environmental impact assessment is submitted, and the approval of this case that was made after the designation of an absolute conservation area was cancelled, no such defect as the plaintiffs asserted exists.

B. Determination

(1) Whether to succeed to defects

The plaintiffs dispute the illegality of the approval disposition of this case on the premise that the defects existing in the approval disposition of this case are succeeded to the approval disposition of this case, but the administrative legal relations are determined as soon as possible and stable, and thus the defect of the administrative disposition should be judged independently and independently in principle, and in principle, the succession of the defect between the administrative dispositions is not recognized. However, in a case where the prior disposition and the subsequent disposition are combined in a series of procedures to achieve the same administrative purpose, and where a single legal effect is generated, if the prior disposition causes a single legal effect, the defects of the prior disposition cannot be deemed as a disposition for invalidation, because the defects are not significant and obvious, and even if there is no defect in the subsequent disposition itself, even if the subsequent disposition, which was conducted on the premise of the prior disposition, is deemed as an unlawful disposition such as the prior disposition, and thus, it can be claimed for revocation as an appeal litigation (Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4567 delivered on February 9, 193).

On the premise that the instant approval disposition is to supplement the defects existing in the instant approval disposition and to continue the existing series of procedures carried out by the Defendant, the defect of the instant approval disposition is an independent disposition separate from the instant approval disposition, and thus, cannot be deemed to have succeeded to the instant approval disposition.

However, as long as the approval disposition of this case is null and void, the approval disposition of this case, which is merely a partial change, may also be detrimental to the purport that there exists the same defect as the approval disposition of this case. Accordingly, the following decision shall be made.

(2) Defects in failure to conduct an environmental impact assessment

According to the above facts, the Navy Headquarters, a project implementer, started an environmental impact assessment of the project site of this case immediately after the approval disposition of this case, held a public inspection for residents and a briefing session for residents, etc., and submitted an environmental impact assessment to the defendant, reflecting the opinions presented in the process of gathering opinions. Based on this, the defendant completed the Jeju Do Governor and completed the procedures for consultation on environmental impact assessment, and subsequently completed the procedure for the approval of the modification of this case. Thus, the approval of the modification of this case cannot be deemed as a defect in the implementation of environmental impact assessment. The plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit.

(3) Defect in the procedures for consultation with the Jeju Do Governor and the procedures for gathering opinions from residents

The plaintiffs asserts to the purport that the defendant abused and abused discretion, such as the public interest of the project in this case, appropriateness of location, feasibility of implementation plan, etc., as a result of formally undergoing the procedures for consultation with the Jeju Do Governor and the procedures for gathering opinions.

On July 8, 2009, the defendant submitted an environmental impact assessment report to the Jeju Do Governor on the basis of Article 299 of the Special Act on Jeju Special Self-Governing Province. On December 21, 2009, the Jeju Do Governor pointed out the lack of nine items, such as air quality and water quality, and requested supplementation of major measures to reduce environmental impacts (Evidence 24). The defendant has completed the procedures for consultation on the environmental impact assessment as of December 2009 by reflecting such contents of consultation and supplementation on several occasions. On the other hand, the Navy Chief of Staff, around April 18, 2008, held an environmental impact assessment report for the residents' public inspection and the residents' presentation on April 7, 2009, held a residents' presentation on the draft of the environmental impact assessment report for public inspection, held a residents' presentation on April 7, 2009, and did not comply with the procedures for consultation and supplementation of the residents' opinions within the short period of time, as presented in the public opinion review process.

(4) Defect in environmental impact assessment

The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant environmental impact assessment was unlawful since endangered species, such as red pots, etc., which were not examined as to the draft of environmental impact assessment, were confirmed within the project area, and that the instant modified approval disposition based on such results was unlawful, since the instant environmental impact assessment was conducted insufficiently, without disregarding the public opinion of opposing residents, and was conducted in the process of collecting residents’ opinions.

If a disposition, such as approval, was made without going through such an environmental impact assessment as prescribed by the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, with respect to a project subject to the environmental impact assessment, such a disposition shall be deemed to be unlawful, but if the contents of the environmental impact assessment were to be somewhat defective, such a disposition shall not be deemed to be unlawful, unless the degree of the defect is so much as to be impossible to achieve the legislative purport of the environmental impact assessment system, and the failure to conduct the environmental impact assessment is not different from that of the approval, the defect is merely one element of determining whether there was a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, and it shall not be deemed that the pertinent approval, etc. is unlawful as a matter of course due to the defect (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 200

The purpose of this case is to supplement the current state of the 2nd 1st Do government's 3rd Do government's 4th Do government's 5th Do government's 2th Do government's 9th Do government's 2th Do government's 9th Do government's 2th Do government's 9th Do government's 2th Do government's 9th Do government's 2th Do government's 9th Do government's 2th Do government's 10th Do government's 10th Do government's 9th Do government's 2th Do government's 10th Do government's 4th Do government's Do government's 2th Do government's Do government's 10th Do government's Do government's Do government's 2th Do government's Do government's Do government's Do government's 2th Do government's 18th Do government.

(v)Cancellation of the designation of an absolute conservation zone;

According to the purport of the written evidence No. 25 and the purport of the oral argument No. 826,194 square meters in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Jeju was designated as an absolute conservation area pursuant to the provisions of Article 292 of the Special Act on Jeju Special Self-Governing Province. Among them, the river and coastal areas were located in the instant project site. Accordingly, the Navy Chief requested Jeju Do Governor to cancel the absolute conservation area for the implementation of the instant project. The Jeju Do Governor decided to change the absolute conservation area by deeming the above 105,295 square meters in the instant project site to be cancelled in the absolute conservation area with the consent of the Jeju Do Council, and announced it on December 23, 2009 by the notification No. 2009-157 of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, and thereafter, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have any defect in the instant disposition related to the designation of the absolute conservation area.

(6) Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant change approval disposition is lawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' main claim against the approval disposition of this case is justified, and the main and conjunctive claim against the approval disposition of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Judge)