2011Revocation of revocation of approval for a business plan for sports facilities (golf course)

1. Ma○○;

Busan ○○○○-Eup

2. Stambed ○.

captain of Busan 00 Eup

3. Kim○-○

Busan ○○○○-Eup

4. Kim○-○

captain of Busan 00 Eup

5. Acheon ○○.

Busan ○○○○-Eup

6. Stambed ○.

Busan ○○○○-Eup

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kang Dong-chul

Head of Busan Metropolitan City

Law Firm International Law Firm

Attorney Yellow Jin-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

September 20, 2012

October 25, 2012

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant's disposition to approve the sports facilities (golfafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafab

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Designation of a Dongsan Tourist Complex, and approval for and alteration of a development plan therefor;

1) On November 30, 2004, the head of the Gun of Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the Gun") filed an application for the designation of a tourist complex with the Defendant as to the area of 3,638,310 square meters in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun. Accordingly, on February 25, 2005, the Defendant received an advance examination of the environment of the said area from the Nakdong River basin Environment Office, and notified the head of the Gun on March 3, 2005 of the designation of the Dongsan-gun Tourism Complex, and designated and announced the tourist complex as a tourism complex under the Busan Metropolitan City Notice No. 2005-69 on March 9, 2005.

2) On November 15, 2005, Busan Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation filed an application with the Defendant for approval of the development plan for the Dongsan Tourist Complex. Accordingly, the Defendant notified the above construction on March 31, 2006, and notified the Busan Metropolitan City’s public notice on April 5, 2006 as to the 3,638,310 meters of the Busan Metropolitan City’s ○○○○○○○○ Dong-gun, Busan Metropolitan City’s public notice on April 5, 2006.

3) On July 25, 2007, the Defendant issued a public notice of approval for the change of the plan to create the Dong Busan Metropolitan City Sightseeing Tourist Complex, which contains the project implementer’s change from the Busan Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation to the Busan Urban Development Corporation. On June 16, 2010, the Busan Metropolitan City’s public notice of approval for the change of the project period and the detailed facilities of the relocation complex was issued. On March 17, 2011, the Defendant notified the head of the Gun and the Busan Urban Corporation of the approval for the change of the plan to alter the plan to create the Dong Busan Urban Tourist Complex and the change of the project area and the plan to use the Dong Tourist Complex to the Busan Urban Development Corporation. On March 23, 2011, the Defendant notified the head of the Gun and the Busan Urban Corporation of the approval for the change of the project area and the plan to use the Dong Tourist Complex to the Busan Urban Development Corporation’s public notice of approval for the change of the project area and the plan to use the Dong Tourist Complex.

(b) Alteration of urban management planning;

1) On July 29, 2009, the Defendant publicly announced the determination of the specific use area, the first district unit planning zone, and the first district unit planning. The Defendant announced the determination of the Class-I district unit planning as to the specific use area, the first district unit planning, and the first district unit planning.

2) After undergoing a prior environmental review process for modifying a specific use area for a project to create a dong Busan Tourist Complex, the Defendant publicly announced the Busan Metropolitan City Urban Management Planning (hereinafter referred to as the "Special-Purpose Area") on March 16, 201 to change the natural green area into a residential station or commercial area for the installation of accommodation facilities, recreation, cultural facilities, etc. as prescribed by the Busan Metropolitan City Notice No. 2011-95 on March 16, 201 (hereinafter referred to as the "Special-Purpose Area") to the effect that the natural green area is changed to a

3) On June 8, 2011, the Defendant issued a decision on the urban management plan (specific use areas, Class 1 district unit planning zones, and district unit planning) and topographical drawings in Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “instant urban management plan”). The Busan Urban Corporation entered into a business agreement with the non-party company on April 16, 2010, and selected the non-party company as a golf course business operator in the Dongbu Tourist Complex Development Project. On March 29, 201, the non-party company filed an application for the construction of sports facilities under Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization of Sports Facilities (hereinafter referred to as “sports facilities”) with 846,781.36 square meters [276,70 meters in Busan Metropolitan City, 13,413.87 square meters in the site of golf course) and 101,496m in the site of public facilities, 496m2, 45, 169m in green area and 18m2 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant sports facilities”).

2) On April 14, 201, the Defendant issued a disposition of approval of a business plan for a registered sports facility business (golf course business) to an outside company (hereinafter “instant disposition”) after consultation with relevant agencies and departments, and subsequently, on April 14, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence of paragraphs (1) through (13), 21 through 32, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's main defense

The plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have been infringed on the direct, specific, and individual interests protected by law due to the disposition of this case, and there is no standing to sue to seek revocation of the disposition of this case.

B. Determination

1) The purport of the provisions of the Sports Facilities Act and the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, which are the applicable laws and regulations of the sports facilities business such as the instant golf course business, are to protect the individual benefits that can live in a pleasant environment without being affected by the limit of admission by the residents in the area subject to the environmental impact assessment expected to cause direct and significant environmental damage due to the implementation of the sports facilities. Thus, the above environmental benefits that the above residents have in relation to the approval disposition of the sports facilities business plan are direct and specific interests that are individually protected by each resident, and the right to sue to seek revocation of the approval disposition of the sports facilities shall be acknowledged, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary. Meanwhile, even to residents outside the area subject to the environmental impact assessment, where environmental damage has been caused or is likely to be caused due to the approval disposition of the sports facilities business plan, the right to sue to seek revocation of the approval disposition of the sports facilities plan can be acknowledged by proving that there is a concern about infringement or infringement of environmental interests due to the approval disposition of the sports facilities (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 306Du36.

2) As to the instant case, in full view of the health unit, evidence Nos. 1-1 through 6, evidence Nos. 3-3, evidence Nos. 6, evidence Nos. 8-1 through 3, evidence Nos. 8-1 through 7, evidence Nos. 10-1 through 6, evidence Nos. 11, 12, and evidence Nos. 67, and the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the present court’s on-site inspection, the plaintiffs can recognize the facts that the plaintiffs are residents of the plane-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, ○○○○○, and ○○○○, which are the area subject to the advance examination for modification of the instant urban management plan (special-purpose area), and are legally protected under the relevant laws and regulations, the Sports Facilities Act, the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, and the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, etc. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the instant disposition. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense of standing to sue is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Determination on procedural defect arguments

1) Determination on the assertion that environmental impact assessment and the procedures for gathering residents’ opinions were not performed

A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant and the Nonparty Company are obligated to collect the opinions of residents pursuant to the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and conduct an environmental impact assessment. Nevertheless, the Defendant and the Nonparty Company did not undergo the procedures for the environmental impact assessment and the gathering of residents’ opinions. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B) the facts of recognition

The following facts are recognized in light of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statements No. 3-3, No. 14-3, No. 14-33, and No. 39.

(1) On March 11, 2005, the captain head of the Gun made a public announcement on the draft of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report from March 11, 2005 to April 2, 2005, under Article 6 of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9037, Mar. 28, 2008) as a public announcement of the captain-gun to gather the opinions of the local residents on the development project for the Dongsan Tourist Complex, and on March 17, 2005, to make it available for public perusal of the draft of the Environmental, Traffic, and Disaster Impact Assessment Report from March 11, 2005 to April 14, 2005, and to hold the resident explanatory meeting from March 17, 2005 to March 23, 2005.

(2) On March 23, 2005, the captain head of the Gun held a briefing session for the residents on the draft of the Environmental, Traffic, and Disaster Impact Deliberation Office at the ○○○○ Eup office. On March 23, 2005, the residents from among the explanation of the above assessment statement requested the residents to submit their opinions in writing, and the residents from the Do head and the Gun head of the Gun head requested the residents to submit their opinions in writing. 51 local residents submitted their opinions demanding the head of the Gun to hold a public hearing.

(3) On June 2, 2005, the Defendant announced that a public hearing for environmental, traffic, and disaster impact assessment of the Dong Busan Metropolitan City tourism complex development project shall be held. On June 2, 2005, the Defendant held a public hearing for environmental, traffic, and disaster impact assessment of the Dong Busan Metropolitan City tourism complex development project on June 2, 2005, and on June 2, 2005, around 200 residents, the Dong Busan Metropolitan Office held a public hearing for environmental, traffic, and disaster impact assessment among residents, and the residents demanded the Defendant’s various measures to refuse to implement the project at the time of non-consultation on compensation.

(4) After doing so, the defendant requested consultations on environmental impact assessment to the basin environmental office in the Nakdong River basin, and the basin environmental office in the Nakdong River basin in the Nakdong River basin in February 10, 2006 response to the contents of consultation on environmental impact assessment to the defendant.

(5) On April 16, 2010, the Busan Urban Corporation selected a non-party company as a golf course business operator of the instant golf course project among the development projects for the East Busan Urban Complex. After that, the Busan Urban Corporation received the instant golf course business plan from the non-party company and reflected it in the plan to review the environmental impact assessment plan of the East Busan Urban Complex Development Project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant environmental conservation plan”). After that, around early 201, the Busan Urban City Corporation prepared a written review of the environmental conservation plan of the instant case as requested by the head of the Seodong River basin basin, and made a request for review and consultation on the written review of the environmental improvement plan of the instant case to the Defendant on November 2010.

(6) The Defendant asked the head of the Nakdong River basin basin environmental office to consult on the instant written review of environmental conservation plan. The head of the Nakdong River basin environmental office, on January 27, 201, in consideration of environmental assessment and ecological impact due to the reduction of green belt width, etc. among golf courses, “The green axis shall be expanded to the maximum extent through the ecological restoration of the cut-off site in the middle of golf courses, and the construction of an ecological wetlands pond that can be formed in the golf course shall be reflected in the project plan.” On March 17, 2011, the Defendant sent an opinion of review of environmental conservation plan following the change of the project plan. The Defendant sent an opinion of review to the Busan Urban Corporation on March 24, 201, the Busan Urban Corporation notified the Defendant of the fact that the request for consultation on the above written review was defective, and on March 24, 2011, the Defendant approved it.

(7) On March 29, 2011, the non-party company filed an application for approval of the instant golf course business plan with the Defendant, which, on March 31, 201, requested the relevant agencies and departments to consult on the above application for approval. Following consultation with the relevant agencies and departments, the Defendant decided to grant the following conditions: “Dong Seosan Tourist Complex Development Project was a project subject to the environmental impact assessment under Article 4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, which shall be implemented in accordance with the contents of the environmental impact assessment agreed upon at the time of approval of the project, and shall be implemented in accordance with the administrative matters.” On the above application for the approval of the project plan, the head of the Nakdongdong basin basin basin environmental office presented to the Defendant an opinion that “The consultation pursuant to the consultation pursuant to the consultation on the project plan should be reflected in the consultation on the development plan.”

(8) On April 14, 2011, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition on the condition that “the content of the written environmental impact assessment and administrative matters shall be performed at the time of the approval of the development plan for the Dongsan Tourist Complex” was approved by the non-party company.

C) Determination

According to Article 4(1)11 of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9037 of March 28, 2008), Article 3(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21185 of Dec. 24, 2008), and Article 3(2)1 (k) and (n) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21185 of Dec. 24, 2008), among tourist complex development projects under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Tourism Promotion Act, those whose area is more than 30,00 square meters in size and the total site area is not less than 250,00 square meters in the construction of sports facilities under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Sports Facilities Act constitute projects subject to environmental impact assessment: Provided, That according to Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act [Attachment 1] of the same Act, a project included in two or more projects must be prepared

In light of the above provisions of the laws and regulations on the environmental impact assessment, the background of the disposition of this case, and the approval conditions, the defendant and the Busan Urban Corporation conducted the environmental impact assessment of the golf course project of this case in combination with the environmental impact assessment of the Dong Busan Urban Corporation, which includes the golf course project of this case. Since the non-party company was selected from the Busan Urban Corporation as the golf course business operator of this case and succeeded to the contents of consultation on the environmental impact assessment that the Busan Urban Corporation had consulted, it is reasonable to view the defendant and the non-party company as legitimately gone through the procedures for the environmental impact assessment and residents' opinion gathering which should go through the disposition of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant and the non-party company did not go through the

2) Determination as to the assertion regarding the preliminary examination of environmental feasibility regarding the instant urban management planning (district unit planning)

A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The determination of the urban management planning (specific-use area), modified-use area and the urban management planning (district unit planning) under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy is subject to separate preliminary review. Nevertheless, the Defendant only requested a prior review of environmental review to the Nakdong River basin environmental office only with respect to the instant urban management planning (specific-use area), and did not conduct a prior review of environmental review, such as requesting a re-consultation with the Nakdong River basin environmental office, holding a presentation for residents, etc. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful on the grounds that the aforementioned procedural defects exist.

B) the facts of recognition

A facts falling under each of the following subparagraphs may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each entry of evidence of Nos. 22 through 25, 41 through 44, Eul evidence of No. 45-1 through 3, Eul evidence of No. 50, 55 through 69, etc.:

(1) On April 14, 2009, the Busan Urban Corporation entrusted ○○○○○○○○-Research Institute with the services of formulating a strategic plan for promoting the development project of the Busan Urban Complex. On May 2010, the said research institute submitted a report on services of formulating a strategic plan for promoting the development project of the Busan Urban Complex to the Busan Urban Corporation. The said report also includes a review of the land use plan, installation plan, construction plan, construction plan, sector plan (traffic plan, green zone plan, landscape plan, infrastructure plan, environment-friendly plan), etc. of the Busan Urban Complex. The Busan Urban Corporation, which was originally established according to the results of the above service, was promoting the alteration of the urban management plan to revise some land use plan, such as a plan for preserving the original form among the plan for the development project

(2) In accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 25-5 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, and Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 23967, Jul. 20, 2012; hereinafter the same) as the public announcement of the Busan Metropolitan City on July 7, 2010, the Defendant submitted an O-type newspaper, 10, 000, and 00, “Public Access Notice of Urban Management Plan and Preliminary Examination” and “Public Access Notice of Environmental Review” during the period of perusal (the draft of urban management planning) and prior environmental nature review (the draft of July 8, 2010). However, there was no opinion that the public announcement was submitted during the period of perusal.

(3) On August 2010, Busan Urban Corporation prepared a preliminary examination report on the prior examination of the environmental feasibility (hereinafter referred to as the "prior examination report of environmental feasibility") for the modification of the urban management plan for the development project of the Dongbusan Tourist Complex. The examination report includes not only the matters concerning the specific use area but also the matters concerning the land utilization plan, the traffic and wintering plan, the installation plan of facilities, the green area plan, the stability of the surface, the construction plan, etc.

(4) On September 14, 2010, the Defendant received an opinion from the basin basin environmental office on the prior environmental review (reconsultation) for the modification of the urban management plan for the development project for the same Busan Metropolitan City Tourist Complex (specific-use area) and sent an opinion on the prior consultation on environmental review to the basin environmental office on September 28, 2010.

(5) On October 27, 2010, the Defendant made a public announcement of re-inspection to hear the residents’ opinions on the draft of the urban management plan (amended by Act No. 2010-1059 of the Busan Metropolitan City’s announcement, but there was no opinion on this. Thereafter, on March 16, 2011, the Defendant made a public announcement of the instant urban management plan (amended by Act No. 2011-95 of the Busan Metropolitan City’s announcement on March 16, 201.

(6) On April 14, 2011, the defendant requested the relevant agencies and departments, such as the Nakdong River basin basin basin basin office, to hold consultations on the draft modification of the urban management plan (Class I district unit planning zone and district unit planning zone) which contains an increase in the area of the Class I district unit planning zone, a household and lot of land, use of buildings, building ratio, floor area ratio, height, etc., with respect to the mine complex in the East River basin basin basin, and on the same day, the head of the Nakdong River basin basin basin office sent the defendant an opinion that "the head of the Nakdong River basin environmental assessment and the opinion that the head of the Nakdong River basin environmental office responded to the consultation under the conditions as of January 27, 2011 shall be implemented."

(7) In addition, pursuant to Article 28 of the National Land Planning Act and Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on April 20, 2011, the Defendant made a public announcement to hear the opinions of the residents on the Defendant’s website, 00 days newsletter, OO newsletter, and 00 newspapers, but there was no opinion submitted during the perusal period.

C) Determination

(1) As a series of procedures conducted in a series of stages to achieve the same administrative purpose, in a case where a single legal effect is generated by combining each other, the subsequent disposition is also illegal on the ground that the prior disposition is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12507, Feb. 9, 1996). However, in a case where the prior disposition and subsequent disposition are aimed at a separate legal effect independent of each other, the validity of the subsequent disposition may not be asserted on the ground of the defect of the prior disposition, except in a case where the defect of the prior disposition is grave and apparent, and thus, are null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1075, Mar. 22, 1

However, an urban and Gun management plan under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is an administrative plan on the land use, transportation, environment, etc. established for the development, maintenance, and preservation of the Special Metropolitan City, a Metropolitan City, a Special Self-Governing City, a Special Self-Governing Province, or a Si/Gun. On the other hand, the approval of a sports facility business plan under Article 12 of the Sports Facilities Act shall be granted by registering to the Mayor/Do Governor for a certain type of sports facility business in order to contribute to the promotion of national health and good use of leisure time by developing and fostering the sports

Therefore, the instant urban management planning (district unit planning) and the instant disposition are separate independent dispositions aimed at a separate legal effect, and they do not have a relation with a prior disposition that is conducted consecutively through a series of procedures for a certain administrative purpose. Thus, even if there is a defect alleged by the Plaintiffs in the instant urban management planning (district unit planning), the instant disposition, which is a separate disposition, is not unlawful, unless such defect is a significant and obvious reason for invalidation of a matter, unless there is a defect that the Plaintiffs claims in the instant urban management planning (district unit planning). Accordingly, in hereinafter, whether there is a defect in the

(2) According to Article 25-2 of the former Framework Act on Environmental Policy (wholly amended by Act No. 10893, Jul. 21, 2011; hereinafter the same) and Article 7(1) and attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the head of the relevant administrative agency shall conduct an advance examination of the urban management plan pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 4 of the National Land Planning Act; Provided, That where there are two or more administrative plans for the same purpose as prescribed by the same Act, the advance examination of the environmental impact shall be conducted in the preceding administrative plan; however, if it is difficult to do so,

On the other hand, Article 25-5 (1) of the former Framework Act on Environmental Policy ("the head of the relevant administrative agency"), when preparing a review report on the administrative plan, shall hear the opinions of interested parties, such as residents, relevant experts, environmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations concerning the prior environmental review, and

The opinion shall be reflected in the relevant administrative plan: Provided, That this shall not apply where the opinions of the residents, etc. on environmental impacts are heard pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes, and Article 8-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the head of the relevant administrative agency shall conduct public inspection and briefing sessions on the draft of the review," and Article 28 (1) of the National Land Planning Act provides that "the Mayor shall hear the opinions of the residents when formulating an urban or Gun management plan, and shall reflect such opinions in an urban or Gun management plan if deemed reasonable," and Article 22 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the head of the Si shall make public announcement of the draft of the urban or Gun management plan at least two daily newspapers with the major nationwide contents of the urban or Gun management plan and the Internet homepage of the relevant Si so that the public can peruse it for at least 14 days."

(3) In light of the content of the preliminary review of the instant urban management plan as seen earlier, the Defendant appears to have also conducted the preliminary review of the instant urban management plan (unit planning) based on the prior environmental review of the specific use area. The instant urban management plan (specific use area) and the instant urban management plan (unit planning) are administrative plans for the same purpose with respect to the land utilization, traffic, environment, etc. formulated for the purpose of development, maintenance, and preservation of the city as prescribed in the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and have been able to examine the instant urban management plan (unit plan) at the time of the preliminary review of the environmental review of the instant urban management plan (specific use area). Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant may also conduct the preliminary environmental review of the instant urban management plan (unit plan) at the time of the preliminary review of the environmental review of

On the other hand, the defendant only made a public announcement of the above preliminary examination and did not present a presentation. However, as seen earlier, the defendant implemented the procedures for hearing the opinions of the residents in accordance with Article 28 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act with respect to the formulation of the instant urban management plan (purpose area) and the instant district unit planning (unit planning), and it is reasonable to view that the act falls under the case of hearing the opinions of the residents, etc. on environmental impacts under the proviso of Article 25-5 (1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy (the National Land Planning and Utilization Act only prescribes the procedures for making a public announcement, and does not stipulate the procedures for holding a presentation for residents). Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is lawful.

3) Determination as to the assertion of prior consultation on the development of the original preservation area

A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendant did not install roads, parking lots, etc. in the preliminary examination of the environmental review conducted at the time of the decision to modify the instant urban management plan (specific-use area), but later, in making the decision to modify the instant urban management plan (district), it included some of the above original preservation area by changing it to roads. Since there is a fishing ground which is the basis of the Plaintiffs’ living in the front sea area of the development area of the original preservation area, the decision to modify the instant urban management plan (district), there is an error of law that did not go through the re-preparation of the preliminary review report for environmental review and re-consultation and the procedures for public inspection and briefing sessions for the residents, even though it did not go through such procedures.

B) Determination

The main text of Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on Environmental Policy provides that "where the head of the relevant administrative agency intends to modify the administrative plan as described in any of the following subparagraphs after being notified of the consultation opinion under the provisions of Article 25-6(1), he/she shall re-preparation a written review and request re-consultation to the head of the consulting agency."

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 3-3, evidence Nos. 13-1, 2, and 14-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 40, 67-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 71 and Eul evidence Nos. 71, the prior environmental review and review of all of the environmental conservation plans of this case are 647,115 square meters, and the area of the road is 4,412 meters in its original form. According to the planning plan of the tourism complex included in the review of the environmental conservation plan of this case, there are no roads or parking lots in the original preservation area of the sea park. However, when the urban management plan of this case (area-based alteration plan), the prior environmental review plan of this case is prepared to build a seaside park with the focus of the green conservation area, and all of the environmental review plan of this case is recognized as the creation of a seaside park with the focus of the land of this case, and the development of a seaside park with the location and landscape of the river of this case.

According to the above facts, roads and parking lots to be installed in the instant urban management plan (district unit planning) are part of the park building plan of the YA, which is the original preservation site, and cannot be deemed as cases where the area to be preserved in the administrative plan is intended to be developed. Thus, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs' assertion on this part constitutes the subject of re-preparation of the advance examination of environmental feasibility pursuant to Article 26-2 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy. Therefore, even if the aforementioned roads and parking lots are to be re-preparation due to the construction of the above roads and parking lots, the following circumstances can be seen according to the above facts, which are located outside the instant golf course site, and there is no direct relation with the disposition of this case. In light of the fact that the above roads and parking lots can be seen as part of the YA plan, the defendant re-consult with the head of the East River basin, and the above roads and parking lots can not be seen as unlawful on the ground that the defects which did not re-preparation the advance examination of environmental impact are significant and apparent.

4) Determination as to the assertion that the contents of the environmental impact assessment were not performed

A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

In order for the defendant to take the instant disposition against the non-party company, it is unlawful that the Busan Urban Corporation did not take such succession procedure and made the instant disposition without taking such succession procedure.

B) Determination

Article 25(1) of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9037 of March 28, 2008 and wholly amended by Act No. 10892 of July 21, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "if a business operator is changed due to a transfer of business, a merger of corporations, etc., the changed business operator shall succeed to the duty to carry out an agreement and conduct an ex post facto environmental impact assessment, etc. under Article 23," and Article 25(2) of the same Act provides that "the operator of a business or facility who has succeeded to under paragraph (1) shall notify the head of the approving authority of matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, such as the implementation of the contents of the agreement, grounds for succession, etc." (Article 50(1) of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act and Article 43(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 25(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act provides that "the details of the plan shall be transferred and reported."

On March 31, 2006, the Busan Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation obtained approval from the defendant for the creation plan of the Dong Busan Metropolitan City Sightseeing Tourist Complex, the golf course project of this case is included in the Dong Busan Metropolitan City Sightseeing Tourist Complex development project, and the defendant and Busan City Urban Corporation also integrates the golf course project of this case and prepares an environmental impact assessment report and an environmental preservation plan for the Dong Busan Metropolitan City Tourist Complex. On April 16, 2010, Busan Urban Corporation selected the non-party company as the golf course operator of the golf course of this case. The non-party company applied for approval for the golf course project of this case as new on March 29, 201, and the defendant applied to the non-party company on April 14, 201 as a condition for approval.

However, Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act provides that "a business operator means a person who establishes a business plan for a golf course business subject to the environmental impact assessment under Article 4 or implements such business." Thus, even if the non-party company obtained new approval for a golf course business plan under the Sports Facilities Act, it is reasonable to deem that the golf course business of this case is a changed business operator under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act by entering into a golf course business plan with the Busan Urban Corporation and implementing the golf course business plan of this case. Accordingly, the non-party company shall succeed to the duty to perform the contents of consultation that it had consulted with the Busan Urban Corporation under Article 25 (1) of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act. Accordingly, the non-party company shall notify the defendant and the Dong River basin environmental office, the head of the approving agency of the implementation status of the contents of consultation, the reason for succession, etc., within 15 days from the date of the change of the golf course business of this case pursuant to Article 25 (2) of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

However, it is reasonable to view that Article 25 (2) of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act provides that a business operator whose business plan was modified shall notify the head of the approving agency and the Minister of Environment of the performance of the contents of consultation when the business operator consulted on environmental impact assessment is changed so that the changed supervisory agency may properly supervise whether the business operator complies with the contents of consultation. However, even if the non-party company did not notify the above facts, the Busan Urban Corporation shall receive the business plan of this case from the non-party company and reflect it and prepare the procedure for consultation, etc., after the non-party company was selected as the golf course business operator of this case, and the non-party company shall apply for approval of the plan of this case to the non-party company's business plan of this case. The non-party company shall be deemed to have approved the contents of consultation as to the non-party company's project plan of this case. The non-party company shall also notify the non-party company of the succession of the contents of consultation to the non-party company's business plan of this case. The purport of this provision is that the non-party company shall fully notify the succession of the contents of consultation procedure.

5) Determination as to the assertion that consultation opinion of the basin environmental management office was not reflected in the business plan of the non-party company

A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The non-party company did not reflect the contents of consultation with the basin basin environmental office in the business plan of the golf course of this case, and the defendant did not confirm whether it was reflected in the business plan of this case, so the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B) Determination

Article 19 (1) of the former Environmental Impact Assessment Act provides that "the head of the approving agency shall, when he/she intends to approve a project plan, etc., confirm whether the details of consultation have been reflected in the project plan, etc. In such cases, where the contents of consultation are not reflected in the project plan, etc., he

In order to receive the instant golf course business plan from the non-party company and reflect it in its original form and to revise the business plan to adjust the conservation green areas, etc., the Busan Urban Corporation shall prepare a review report on the environmental conservation plan of this case and request the defendant to review and consult on the environmental conservation plan of this case around November 2010. The Nakdong River basin basin environmental office shall consider environmental assessment as to the defendant's request for consultation on January 27, 201 and ecological impacts due to the decrease in the width of green areas at the center of golf course as No. -655, "the green axis shall be extended to the maximum extent possible through the ecological restoration of the cut ground of golf course, and the construction of ecological wetlands which is formed in golf course shall be reflected in the business plan as follows. The Busan Urban Corporation shall reflect its opinion on the environmental conservation plan of this case in the above change of the business plan on March 24, 201, and notify the non-party company of the consultation on the change of the business plan of this case on March 24, 2011>

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

According to the above facts, the defendant confirmed whether the opinion of the basin basin environmental office was already reflected in the business plan on January 27, 201 when changing the business plan for the development project of the Dongsan Tourist Complex, and approved it. Since then, unless there are circumstances to deem that the business plan of the non-party company was re-amended, the non-party company prepared the business plan by reflecting the opinion of the consultation on January 27, 201 of the Nakdong River basin environmental office, and it is reasonable to view that the above contents of consultation are reflected in the business plan even in making the disposition of this case against the non-party company. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is groundless.

B. Determination as to the assertion of substantive defect

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

As a result of the instant golf course business, the Plaintiffs may cause damage, such as earth and sand collapse caused by the alteration of the form and quality of civil engineering works and construction vehicles, noise and dust generation caused by construction vehicles, traffic congestion caused by golf course access vehicles, and marine pollution and damage to farm farms, etc. caused by earth and sand and agricultural chemicals flowing into the coast. The instant disposition is a substantive defect that could not anticipate such damage to the Plaintiffs.

2) Determination

According to the evidence Nos. 3-3 and Eul evidence Nos. 34-36 (including virtual numbers), and the overall purport of this court's on-site inspection and arguments, according to the "written prior examination of factors influencing disasters according to the Dong Busan Urban Complex Development Project prepared by the Busan Urban Corporation around March 201, the Busan Urban Corporation has examined the damage prevention plan such as soil outflow to nearby areas or facilities after the construction time of the golf course project of this case and after the construction of the construction of the golf course of this case, water pollution prevention plan (such as storage and temporary erosion) due to the outflow of agricultural chemicals and fertilizers, and the plan to prevent water pollution (such as the installation of a reservoir and temporary flood). According to the review of the environmental conservation plan of this case, the project operator is planned to install a reduction facility, temporary flood storage station, and a 5-lane plan to install a 30-lane road under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environmental Policy to minimize environmental damage caused by soil and sand outflow, and it is not required to establish a noise impact assessment plan and a plan to reduce noise within the surrounding area's.

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The non-party company is a corporation pursuing profit-making and the public interest, such as activation of the regional economy, which can be gained through the instant golf course business, was weak, while the instant golf course business is likely to cause marine pollution caused by soil and agrochemical outflow, etc., and thus, the infringement of the plaintiffs' right to life and the natural environment are much more serious than the public interest gained by the defendant. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is in deviation from and abuse of discretionary power.

2) Determination

According to the above facts, the Busan Urban Corporation examined the possibility of environmental damage caused by earth and sand outflow, etc. to neighboring residents due to the golf course project in this case through the review of environmental impact assessment and environmental conservation measures, etc., and established measures therefor. The defendant was subject to the disposition in this case after consultation with the river basin basin environmental office about environmental impact assessment, etc., and the defendant planned and promoted the golf course project in this case as part of the development project of the Dongsan Tourist Complex for regional economic interest from around 2004 to the present, it is difficult to view the disposition in this case as an illegal disposition that deviates from and abused discretionary power.

4. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge, the Korean Judge;

Judges Yoon Jin-jin

Judge Hwang-man