beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The case shall be transferred to the collegiate division of the Jeonju District Court.
purport.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a project implementer for the construction of A Electric Transmission Cable (hereinafter “instant project”); the Defendants are owners of “land owned” as indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained authorization of the construction plan for the instant project from the Minister of Knowledge Economy. On February 11, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained authorization of the implementation plan for the instant project from the Gunsan City Mayor. On July 22, 2011, the Plaintiff was adjudicated to expropriate the steel tower site necessary for the instant project by the Governor of the Jeollabuk-do Regional Land Tribunal.
C. The instant project is a project that constructs a 92-time transmission steel tower from the line up to approximately 30.331km of the Gunsan City, C, D, E, and F Day to attract companies in the North Gun Industrial Complex and ensure the stable supply of electricity in the Saemangeum Industrial Complex. In order to construct the transmission steel tower, to transport power lines, and to install processing boat lines, it is necessary to temporarily use the instant land in the vicinity of each steel tower as a material storage yard and a temporary passage, and to alter or remove trees, soil, stones, and other obstacles.
On October 13, 2011, the Seoul Administrative Court filed a lawsuit against the Minister of Knowledge Economy to revoke the approval of the construction plan (201Guhap7670). The Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the above residents' claims and the above residents' appeals were dismissed. The above judgment became final and conclusive as the residents' appeals and appeals were dismissed.
E. The Plaintiff was consulted with the Defendants on the temporary use of the instant land necessary for the instant project, but the Defendants changed the business method and the business section.