2011Nu288 Revocation, etc. of implementation plans for river works

I, 329 persons, including 329 persons (attached Form 333 persons of the total list of the plaintiffs), shall withdraw a lawsuit in the trial.

[Attachment I] List (1) of Plaintiffs, except four others, shall be the same as the remainder

1. The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs

2. Daejeon Regional Construction and Management Administration.

Korea Water Resources Corporation

Daejeon District Court Decision 2009Guhap4557 Decided January 12, 2011

2011, 11, 24

January 19, 2012

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are borne by the Plaintiffs.

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The decision of the head of the Daejeon Regional Construction and Management of the Republic of Korea shall be revoked. The implementation plan for each of the six construction sections of the Geum River-gu, which was made by the head of the Daejeon Regional Construction and Management on November 12, 2009 through the notification of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on the implementation plan for each of the six construction sections of the Geum River-gu, which was made by the head of the Daejeon Regional Construction and Management under No. 2009-418, the implementation plan for each of the seven construction sections of the Geum River-gu, which was made by the head of the Daejeon Regional Construction and Management under No. 2009-4199, and the approval for each of the six construction sections of the Geum River-gu, which was made by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on November 16, 2009, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is that the 7th local river of the first instance court is used as the 'local river', and the 4 plaintiffs stated in the list (1) of plaintiffs listed in the 16-17th judgment of the first instance court have withdrawn the lawsuit. Thus, the part of the judgment ex officio (the part of the judgment that is unlawful as a lawsuit filed by the attorney appointed by the incompetent) is deleted, and the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the judgment below to the reasons of the judgment of the first instance, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2.

A. On the ground that there is no need to increase flood risks and to install beams due to the installation of beams

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

According to the result of the on-site inspection in this court, it was revealed that the high information section of the white field and the source of power generation facilities of small number of water in the white field have caused the reduction of water level and the phenomenon of water flow disorder. Therefore, it is supported by the need of installation as a structure that increases flood hazard rather than a flood prevention facility.

2) Determination

As alleged by the plaintiffs, it is reasonable to view that the white stream and the Gongju may obstruct the flow of the water of the main stream of the Geum River and increase flood risks. However, the project of this case is to achieve the objectives of the Geum River Domination project by the Geum River 4th River, and is to achieve the objectives of the Geum River Domination project by the Geum River 4th River Domination, and it is recognized as a facility for the prevention of flood, such as flood, inasmuch as the flood level of the main stream of the Geum River is lowered and the level of water level is appropriately adjusted to reduce the flood level of the river and reduce the flood damage by properly regulating the water level of the river basin, and the project of this case can be seen as a facility for the prevention of flood, such as flood, in the entire river basin of the Geum River basin, and the necessity for securing water resources and water quality in preparation for other administrative goals, which are to achieve the disposition of this case.

Therefore, it is difficult or difficult to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion that there is no need to install the white and Gongju as a facility that enhances flood hazard on the above circumstances that can be known through the on-site inspection of this court.

B. As to the effect that the dredging project affects the adverse effect

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

According to the result of on-site inspection of this Court's official land, it is recognized that the previous sandy president has disappeareded. As a result of large-scale dredging work conducted as part of the project in this case, it seems that the form of low animal is extinguished and the water purification function of sand has been deteriorated, as well as that the previous sandy sandy field inspection result is likely to disappear in traditional areas due to the death of sandy president. Therefore, the above on-site inspection result supports that there is no need for large-scale dredging work.

2) Determination

According to the results of the on-site inspection of this court, a sand president was not seen in the case of public officials at the time of on-site inspection, which is a place for on-site inspection requested by the plaintiff.

① In full view of the purport of the argument at the present court’s on-site inspection, the above on-site inspection place is different from the location of reference pictures as of July 12, 2010 submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the on-site inspection, and the Defendant’s side, as part of the instant project, performed restoration work to expand sand saws by transporting sand on the uppermost upstream of the public road, taking into account that the water level is high when the public road is constructed as part of the instant project, and a significant sand saws over water, and the Defendant’s actual construction work performed to restore sand saws by transporting sand on the uppermost side of the public road. At the time of the on-site inspection, the Defendant’s photographs (e.g., e., g., the photo of the Plaintiff at the same place where the above on-site inspection was conducted at the same time as the Plaintiff’s above 8th day of the on-site inspection (e., g., the shape of sand sand president).

Therefore, it is difficult or insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion that there is no need to dredge business solely on the basis of the above circumstances that can be known through the field inspection results of this court.

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

According to the court's results of on-site inspection of the Joint River and White River, the defendants created a park with enormous costs even though they did not form a collective residential area around the Joint River and White River, and there is no choice but to cause aggravation of water quality by spraying agrochemicals, fertilizers, etc. in order to manage the park facilities, resulting in an act violating the purposes of water quality improvement, and there is no need to install the above park facilities and there is a high possibility that the said facilities can be transferred into a pet complex only because there is no need to install them.

2) Determination

According to the results of the on-site inspection of this court, apartment buildings and other areas have not been formed around the Gohap river and the white village, and the fact that ecological parks, fences, bicycle lanes, playgrounds, etc. are created on the river is recognized.

However, considering the results of the on-site inspection by this court, in the future, large-scale apartment complex is planned to be created in the vicinity of the Joint River, and in the future, the white village is located in the ancient village of the tourist destination, as well as the 3-story prospect cost for viewing the whole area, and the parking lot can be recognized in the roadside because the tent park facilities of the Joint River and the White River can be used as a place for sports activities by many tourists as well as neighboring residents in the future, and many tourists are expected to visit and use it as a place for sports activities.

Therefore, it is difficult or insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion that there is no need to install astronomical park facilities solely on the basis of the above circumstances that can be known through the on-site inspection

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit by 274 plaintiffs in the separate sheet (2) of the plaintiffs in this case is unlawful and all of them are dismissed, and all of the plaintiffs' claims as stated in the remaining list (3) of plaintiffs should be dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance.

The presiding judge, new judge

Judges Cho Young-hoon

Judges Kim Gung-sung