208Guhap9813 Revocation of Permission for the development of spring water

Professor00 et al., 103

[Judgment of the court below]

The Governor of Gyeonggi-do

The litigation performer red

CG Spring Water Co., Ltd.

Macheon-si

Gyeong-ri, Representative Director

Law Firm ＋ + +

[Defendant, Appellant] Plaintiff 1

January 20, 201 20

February 23, 2011

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s disposition on October 23, 2007 for the development of spring water against the Intervenor Company GS development (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor Company”) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 24, 2005, Nonparty 1 filed an application with the Defendant for permission for the development of spring water under Article 10(1) of the Drinking Water Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 8952, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 274, Jan. 29, 2008; hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to conduct the operation of drinking water in YY-si, Young-si, Y-si.

B. On March 7, 2007, the court established an intervenor company in Macheon-si Idri for the purpose of producing and selling drinking spring water, and applied for permission for the development of spring water to the Defendant, along with a written environmental impact investigation report on April 2, 2007 (hereinafter “instant investigation report”).

C. On April 2, 2007, the Defendant requested a basin basin environmental office to examine the instant survey document, and the intervenor company requested to supplement the said survey document three times, and the intervenor company submitted a supplementary report three times from May 28, 2007 to August 29, 2007.

D. When the Han River basin basin environmental office notifies the defendant of the result of the final examination of the survey of this case on October 15, 2007, the defendant, on the basis of the result of such examination, on October 23, 2007, has a spring water dog to the intervenor company on October 23, 2007

The instant disposition that permitted the establishment was taken.

[Grounds for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4, 5, and 12 (with a number, 2)

2. Determination on the main defense of this case

A. Judgment on the defense that the time limit for filing a lawsuit has lapsed

The defendant submitted a petition to the defendant and a copy of the instant disposition to the Minister of Environment and submitted it to the defendant, and thus, the plaintiffs knew of the disposition of this case at the latest around the date of submission of each of the above complaints. Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful since 90 days passed from the lawsuit of this case was filed. According to each of the statements of No. 13 and No. 14 (including the number number) of No. 13 and No. 14 (including the number number), the EBS residents submitted a petition to the defendant on March 18, 2008 and the above residents submitted the same petition to the Minister of Environment on March 19, 2008, and submitted a copy of the instant disposition to the defendant. However, according to the evidence, it is difficult to find that the plaintiffs were not included in the plaintiffs' signature and seal on each of the above complaints, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that each of the above dispositions of this case was submitted. Accordingly, it is difficult to find that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs's defense of this case.

B. Determination on the defense that no standing to sue exists

(1) First of all, the defendant is a resident outside the environmental impact scope, and the disadvantage affected by the plaintiffs is merely an abstract and indirect public interest commonly held by the general public, and since the disadvantage affected by the plaintiffs is not an individual, direct, and specific legal interest, it is argued that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case.

A third party who filed a lawsuit seeking revocation on the ground that his/her environmental interest is infringed or is likely to be infringed upon by a disposition, who is not the direct counter party to the disposition, shall be acknowledged as the standing to sue to prove that his/her environmental interest is the interest that is individually, directly, and specifically protected by the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations. However, in cases where the scope of the influence right that is anticipated to be infringed on the environment is specified in the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations on the ground of the administrative disposition, it may be anticipated that the relevant disposition would cause direct and significant environmental damage to the residents of the affected area. Such environmental interest is the direct and specific interest that is individually protected to the individual residents, and such environmental interest is presumed to be infringed or infringed on the environmental interest, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du1461, Dec. 22, 2006).

Under this legal doctrine, the purport of Article 11 and Article 13 of the Act is to protect the environmental public interest related to the project by allowing the project of spring water to be implemented in such a way that does not harm its own landscape, not only to protect the public interest related to the project, but also to protect the individual interests that can live in a pleasant environment beyond the tolerance limit compared to the previous convictions. In addition, Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act [Attachment 1] of the Act provides that the amount of raw water reserves and calculation conditions, the adequate quantity of raw water, the range and scope of the capture, the environment geological research, etc. The plaintiffs are not entitled to secure the environmental impact of the water of this case as well as the area of the water of this case and the area of the water of this case, namely, the entry of the water of this case No. 5-2, the result of the on-site inspection of this court, and the examination of the whole water of this case, and the content of the water of the water of this case, the plaintiffs are not entitled to secure the environmental impact of the water of this case.

(2) Meanwhile, in order to develop and utilize groundwater under the Groundwater Act, the Intervenor Company must either obtain the permission of the competent administrative agency or report it to the competent administrative agency. However, the Plaintiffs are using groundwater by drilling groundwater with no permission or without permission, and the disadvantages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant disposition are not legally protected, and so the Plaintiffs are not legally protected, so long as there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the instant disposition, the Intervenor’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

As alleged by the Intervenor Company, even if the Intervenor Company is required to develop and utilize groundwater after obtaining permission or making a report by the Plaintiffs, even if the Intervenor Company is required to develop and utilize groundwater due to the pollution of groundwater or the reduction of the volume of groundwater due to the instant disposition, it may be at a disadvantage that may not develop and utilize groundwater in a lawful manner. As seen earlier, such disadvantage is the benefit protected pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations and relevant laws and regulations on the grounds of the instant disposition and the relevant laws and regulations. Accordingly, the Intervenor Company’s defense is without merit.

C. Determination as to the defense that there is no interest in the lawsuit

The Intervenor Company asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful, unless there is a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, since the period of validity of the instant disposition is five years, and the Intervenor Company has re-examineed whether the amount of spring water developed through the environmental impact assessment again at the time of applying for extension of the period of validity, so long as there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant disposition. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs are likely to infringe on the grounds of the instant disposition and the interests protected under the relevant laws and regulations, and thus, there is a legal interest to escape from the concerns of such infringement. Accordingly, the Intervenor Company’s defense is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Defects in environmental impact assessment

In the disposition of this case, the assessment of environmental impacts based on the survey document of this case and its supplementary report was conducted, and the disposition of this case was not deemed to have undergone an objective assessment of environmental impacts as prescribed by the Act.

(2) Defect in the instant survey document

(a) the omission and reduction of potential pollution sources;

The investigation of this case is written differently from the fact that livestock farmers operating as sericultural pollution sources, their size, and the number of restaurants are different from the fact, and the garbage reclamation site located at a place 480 meters away from each of the administrative districts of this case is omitted as locked pollution sources.

(b) the reduction and omission of the volume of groundwater used;

In the investigation of this case, there is a defect that is different from the fact that the well for domestic water and the water supply for agricultural water are entered differently from the fact.

(C) a question about the adequate quantity and quality of the

Although the survey of this case shows that the volume of BLri groundwater is 600 tons for a day which can be developed, it is calculated based on the volume of groundwater different from the fact and the potential contamination source. The water quality of BOri is the level of request for water supply at the same time as there is a serious pollution due to a livestock industry conducted for a long time, and EMBri residents are also water quality problems.

(b) Relevant statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In the event that a disposition is taken on a subject matter subject to an environmental impact assessment under the relevant laws, the court should first determine whether the subject matter subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure under the relevant laws has been properly implemented and if the subject matter of the environmental impact assessment procedure has been properly conducted, the court should determine whether the subject matter of the environmental impact assessment is defective on the basis of the environmental impact assessment. If the subject matter of the environmental impact assessment is inadequate, the degree of the defect is so far as it is impossible to achieve the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system, and if the degree of the defect does not reach the degree that it is impossible to achieve the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system, the determination on whether the disposition was lawful by examining whether there was a deviation or abuse of discretion due to the defect (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12073, Dec. 9, 2004, etc.).

(2) Whether there is a defect in the process of environmental impact assessment

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 11, and 12, the defendant may request a basin environmental office to conduct an environmental impact examination in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Articles 13, 14, and 18 of the Act, and may recognize the facts that the defendant issued the instant disposition to the intervenor based on the results of the examination. According to these facts of recognition, it is difficult to find that there is an error in the process of environmental impact assessment, including the above environmental impact examination, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that there is an error in the process of environmental impact assessment is without merit.

(3) Whether the content of the environmental impact assessment is false or not

(A) Whether the volume of locked and groundwater used on the instant survey document is reduced and omitted

In full view of the overall purport of Gap's evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5, 8, and 9, the court appraiser's appraisal results (referred to as "court appraisal" in this Chapter) and the whole pleadings, ① The investigation report of this case and its supplementary report include eight stables operating as divers, two cafeterias, but the court's appraisal records include 23 stables operating as divers, three restaurants, three natural research farms, and one additional divers. According to the court's appraisal records, the waste reclamation site which was used since 194 and currently being used as the issue is located at approximately 50 meters away from the court's divers of the intervenor company's divers and 60 meters away from the court's divers for agricultural water, and only 1 and 6 additional 500 meters of the divers for agricultural water in this case's divers for agricultural water.

According to such facts of recognition, even if there may be differences between the time point of time and the time of the preparation of the instant survey report and the supplementary report, it is difficult to view that the instant survey report faithfully reflected the current status of SS interest for the instant disposition because the difference is not so significant. Therefore, it is recognized that the survey report, which was the basis of the instant disposition, is omitted and reduced by the potential pollution source and the volume of groundwater used is reduced compared to the actual situation.

(B) Appropriateness of determining the adequate quantity and quality of the survey document of this case

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 8 and the purport of the whole pleadings, ① The basin area of the disposition of this case was changed to 3, 810,000 square meters on the first supplementary report on the survey of this case, which was changed to 4, 910,000 square meters on the survey of this case, and 1,866m3/day, which is the adequate quantity of the survey of this case, is calculated on the basis of 4,910,00 square meters which is the basin area of the water basin before the above change, ② The water use and sampling status in the survey of this case are acknowledged to have been measured except for the source which was omitted on the survey report of BG village and the source which was found to have been measured on the survey of water quality of this case. According to the results of the survey of this case, it is difficult to view that the adequate status of the survey of water quality of this case was reflected in the survey of this case.

(4) Whether the instant disposition is unlawful due to a defect in environmental impact assessment

(4) According to the facts of Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 5, 8, 9, and 10, if the above 5th appraisal method is calculated based on the revised diversative report, 3, 810, and 00 square meters, the exploitable volume of groundwater is 1,48m (3, 810, 1252m of annual river water x 365m of 12.3m of 5m of groundwater : 3m of the above diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary dives.

According to the facts found above, the survey of this case is defective that the current state of interest is not fully reflected in the entry of potential contamination sources, groundwater volume, adequate refluent quantity, water quality, etc. In addition, even if recognizing that the degree of the defect is insufficient to achieve the legislative intent of the environmental impact assessment system under the relevant laws and regulations, and thus, it cannot be said that the degree of the defect is different from that of the failure to conduct environmental impact assessment. Furthermore, even if the defective statement was changed to be faithfully reflected in the current state of MBri Village, it is difficult to deem that the instant disposition based on the defective statement in the survey of this case was changed to be in excess of the discretionary authority, it is difficult to deem that there was an error of deviation or abuse of discretionary authority.

4. Conclusion

Thus, each claim of the plaintiffs in this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judge Lee Sang-hoon

Judge Lee Jin-hun

Judges Kim Dong-dong

Plaintiff List

1. The door;

Gyeonggi Spocheon-si

2. Sami;

Gyeonggi Spocheon-si

. ... ... .. and 102 others.