1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of adding or adding the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third 18 line of the judgment of the court of first instance added “The Intervenor joining the Defendant was merged with C on July 11, 2012, and was approved by the Minister of Knowledge Economy on September 19, 2012 (the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy) for the merger of the instant project due to the merger,” as follows.

Following the judgment of the first instance court’s fourth 10 lines “(10 lines”) of the fourth 10 lines of the judgment, the Plaintiff appealed the judgment of the first instance as Seoul High Court 2018Nu72637, but the dismissal of the appeal was sentenced on December 20, 2019, and the Plaintiff appealed as the Supreme Court 2020Du31576, but the appeal was dismissed on April 29, 2020, and the said judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive as it is.”

It is reasonable to see that a consultation on small-scale environmental impact assessment has been completed, and there is no significant change to the extent that a small-scale environmental impact assessment consultation has to undergo a small-scale environmental impact assessment consultation or advance consultation on environmental impact assessment, as to matters examined in advance of the consultation on small-scale environmental impact assessment, at the time of the consultation on small-scale environmental impact assessment. It does not seem that there was a significant change to the extent that the total permitted area should undergo a small-scale

In the first instance judgment, “the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy seeking confirmation of invalidity of the permit for the electricity generation business, which is a prior disposition, but was dismissed.” The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy seeking confirmation of invalidity of the permit for the electricity generation business, which is a prior disposition, but the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the permit for the electricity generation business was also made in the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidation of the permit for the electricity generation business.