|
[1] In the matter regarding a facility-concentrated district development project at a national park, subjected to an Environmental Impacts Assessment(""EIA""): whether the environmental interests of the residents in the EIA subject area regarding an approval to modify the facilities' basic design, etc., are direct and concrete interests protecting each individual separately (affirmative) and; whether the above mentioned residents have standing in seeking to revoke the agency's action, on the grounds that their interests were injured (affirmative)
[2] The legal nature of the approval of the park facilities' basic design and the modification design regarding the National Park project; the judicial review issues on these approvals, and; if the action had been based on the misunderstanding of facts, whether the administrative agency's discretionary action is illegal due to the discretionary power being deviated or abused (affirmative)
[3] The case ruling that in relation to the development project of a facility-concentrated district in a national park, as long as the Minister of Environment was consulted regarding the approval for the modification of the facilities' basic plan, even if the National Park's Management Authority (""NPMA"") took a disposition contradicting the opinion based on the Minister of Environment's environmental impact assessment, the disposition cannot be held to be illegal
[4] The meaning of ""the illegality inherent in the adjudication itself"" under Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act(""ALA"") and; whether the re-adjudication dismissing a legitimate request for administrative appeal has the illegality inherent in the adjudication itself (affirmative)
|
