|
【Main Issues and Holdings】
[1] The degree of the duty of care that a Class-II environmental impact assessment agent has with respect to business activities stipulated in Article 68(3)1(g) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, corresponding to the scope of business activities thereof
Whether a document prepared by a Class-II environmental impact assessment agent based on outcomes of the performance of the above business activities corresponds to “environmental impact assessment reports, etc.” (affirmative in principle), and this is likewise applicable in a case where a Class-II environmental impact assessment agent performed the above business activities subcontracted by a Class-I environmental impact assessment agent (affirmative)
[2] Even though an environmental impact assessment agent could have confirmed endangered wild fauna and flora and natural monuments with the general care in the process of preparing environmental impact assessment reports, etc., where the environmental impact assessment agent omitted them, thereby making it difficult for the institutions qualified for review and consultation on environmental impact assessment reports, etc. to properly examine them or seriously undermining public trust in them, whether such act corresponds to “where environmental impact assessment reports, etc. were falsely or inadequately prepared” stipulated in the former statutes or regulations related to environmental impact assessment (affirmative)
[3] Standards for, and degree of, the duty of care required when determining whether environmental impact assessment reports, etc. were falsely or inadequately prepared (held: the ordinary duty of care of the average related experts who engage in the same business and field)
|
