1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) A public notice of approval of an execution plan for electric power resource development business 1) The Defendant is to construct 154kV P transmission line construction business (hereinafter “instant business”) in order to meet the demand for new power due to the creation of N and Pyeongtaek-siO.

On or around March 5, 2008, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy (at the time of change of name, the Minister of Knowledge Economy, and the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, regardless of whether before or after change of name.

2) The execution plan for electric power resource development business for the instant business (hereinafter referred to as “instant implementation plan”).

(2) On September 2, 2010, pursuant to Article 5 of the former Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013), the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy applied for approval with respect to the instant business implementation plan containing the contents of construction of electric transmission lines of 13.428 km in length (hereinafter “electric transmission line of this case”) and the steel tower (hereinafter “electric transmission tower of this case”) supporting such contents, such as the location of the wife population, the chemical Qinsi-si, the Rodong-si, the Sin-si, the Pyeongtaek-si, and the 207,02 square meters (the steel tower site: 11,379 square meters, the 195,643 square meters), and publicly announced to U.N. on September 13, 2010.

B. On August 22, 2006, when determining the instant implementation plan, the Defendant sought opinions from the head of VS group about whether it conflicts with military operations, and whether it interferes with military operations in the area where the scheduled progress of the transmission line newly established for the instant business, and reflected the reply from the head of VS group on November 3, 2006, stating that “Conditional consent should be given under the condition that it goes beyond 100 meters from the outer fences of the military unit.” However, after applying for the approval of the instant implementation plan, the Defendant, including the Plaintiffs, resided in the GW Village of the Singu population (hereinafter “W Village”), or residing from the residents who owned the land in order from the residents who owned the land.