<p>As the supervisor of the national park, the Minister of Home Affairs approved the basic design of facilities in the Songnisan National Park including 102 buildings facilities, 348,087 ㎡ of annual construction area, 5,846 ㎥ of discharge water per day, and 10ppm of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) from the discharged water. These facilities were subjected to an Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA). Later on, a modification of the basic design was approved, including, among others, the reduction of the original construction area and the intensification of the discharge water BOD level. The court had to analyze, among others, whether the environmental interests of the residents in the EIA subject area were direct and concrete interests protecting each individual separately, and whether the residents had standing in seeking to revoke the agency’s action. It was of the view that the purport of the relevant articles was to protect the individual interests of the residents living in the EIA subject area from receiving direct and serious environmental injuries, and ensuring the protection of the residents’ right to live in a pleasant environment. Therefore the environmental interest of the above residents in regard to the approval of the facilities’ design were viewed has being direct and concrete interest protecting each residents individually. The residents had standing in the proceedings. Furthermore, the court analyzed the legal nature of the approval (whether it was a discretionary action) of the park facilities’ basic design and the modification design regarding the National Park project as well as the judicial review issues on these approvals (whether the discretionary power had been deviated or abused). It held that the execution of the natural park project was an action that affected the preservation of the national soil and the protection of the environment, and therefore the approval for the park facilities’ plans were a form of discretionary action which had to be decided after considering among others, the status, location and surrounding circumstances of the project site, the scale and the method of that project, and its effect on nature and the environment. It also held that if the discretionary action of an administrative agency had been based on the misunderstanding of facts, the action was illegal due to the discretionary power being deviated or abused. In conclusion, the original court’s holdings were regarded as being just and standing to reason. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.</p>