1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the second and second of the judgment of the court of first instance dismiss “B” as “B and C”; and (b) the six to nine (7) parallels 4 to 7 (9) of the judgment of the court of first instance are identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

(B) Furthermore, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff has justifiable grounds for making the instant environmental impact assessment report in a false manner, by comprehensively taking account of each of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 15 through 18, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as well as the overall purport of pleadings.

As a Class 1 environmental impact assessment business entity, the Plaintiff is obligated not to make an environmental impact assessment report in a fraudulent manner by faithfully conducting an on-site investigation and documentary investigation based on its expertise when making the instant environmental impact assessment report.

However, the environmental impact assessment of this case contains inadequate descriptions as to whether one of the important factors that affect the environment, such as omitting the entry of the wastewater discharge facility of this case.

The instant wastewater discharge facility was installed upon filing a report on the installation of wastewater discharge facilities with the head of Yeongdeungpo-si on March 22, 2012. The Plaintiff, upon receipt of a request from B and C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “B, etc.”) to prepare the instant environmental impact assessment report, clearly sought confirmation on the existence of wastewater discharge facilities from B and C, or confirmed whether the wastewater discharge facilities were installed with the competent authority, could avoid such misstatement.

However, it seems that the plaintiff did not seek clear confirmation of the existence of wastewater discharge facilities to B.

According to the technical service contract written by the Plaintiff and B, B, etc., the Plaintiff.