[Jeju Update] [Translation of the Statement] Press Interview on the [July 15] Court Judgment By the Opponent Groups against the Naval Base

*Image source: same as the below link (Media Jeju)

'천주교제주교구평화의섬특별위원회, 강정마을회, 법환어촌계, 평화를위한그리스도인모임, 제주군사기지저지와 평화의섬실현을위한 범도민대책위는 2010년 7월 16일 오전 10시 제주도의회 도민의 방에서 기자회견을 갖고 서울행정법원의 해군기지와 관련한 판결에 대한 입장을 밝혔다. 뒤에 있는 배너의 글씨는 법으로도 증명된 해군 기지 일방 강행, 즉각 중단하라.'

'The Special committee for the Island of Peace of the Catholic Jeju District, Gangjeong village people’s Council, Beobhwan fishing community, Christians’ meeting for peace, and Pan-Island committee against the Jeju military base & for the realization of the Island for Peace, who have opposed against the naval base, having the press interview in the Island people’s room at 10am, July 16, 2010, expressed their position on the decision of the Seoul Administrative Court, related to the issue of the naval base. The letters in the banner in the wall say; Immediately stop the unilateral enforcement of the naval base [business], proven by the law, too!

___________________________________________________________
* See the related blogs on the lawsuit on Dec. 17, 2009, Feb 12, April 19, April 20, May 29, July 13, 2010 and July 15, 2010
___________________________________________________________
* See the latest blog on the Jeju naval base issue:
[Translation] Important Lawsuit Result Will Be Today, on July 15 (July 15, 2010)
___________________________________________________________
* See all the blogs on the Jeju naval base issue (157 on the date of July 15, 2010)
___________________________________________________________

* Below is the arbitrary translation of the statement that appeared in the Media Jeju. See also the link of the Jeju Solidarity for Participatory Self-Government & Environmental Preservation(제주 참여 환경 연대).


Media Jeju

[전문] 해군기지 건설 반대 단체, 법원 판결 관련 기자회견
[Statement] Press Interview on the [July 15] Court Judgment By the Opponent Groups against the Naval Base

법으로도 증명된 정당성 없는 해군기지사업 즉각 중단하라!
Immediately stop the unjustified naval base business, by the law, too!

• 이번 판결은 부당하고 무리한 추진이라는 것이 법률로서 인정된 것.
• 정당성 잃은 해군기지사업 즉각 중단과 함께 전면 재검토 되어야.
• 도지사는 절대보전지역 해제처분에 대한 직권 취소 변경에 나서야.

•The court judgment this time means that [the process of the naval base business] has been acknowledged by law, as unjust and unreasonable.
•The naval base business that has lost its validity should be immediately stopped and totally reappraised.
•The Island Governor should act, by his official authority, for the cancellation amendment of the [former government’s] disposal of the [designation-] removal of the absolute preservation area.

어제 내려진 해군기지 국방부장관 승인처분 무효확인소송에 따른 판결은 제주해군기지 사업이 절차적으로 위법․부당하게 이뤄졌음을 법률로서 증명한 것이다.

The yesterday (July 15, 2010)’s court decision on the lawsuit for the confirmation of the cancellation of the National Defense Minister’s approval disposal of the naval base means it was proven by the law that the Jeju naval base business had been, in procedures, unjustly driven with the violation of law.

이번 판결은 다음과 같은 의미를 갖는다고 판단한다.

We conclude that the court decision this time has the meanings as the below.

첫째, 이번 판결에서 작년 1월 국방부 장관의 승인처분에 대한 무효확인을 명확히 한 것은, 그 자체로 해군기지 사업의 절차적 위법성을 지적한 것과 더불어, 이를 전제로 한 토지보상협의 등의 후속절차도 사실상 ‘무효’임을 주문한 것으로 받아들인다.

First, we understand the thing itself that the court clarified the confirmation of the nullity on the approval disposal by the Minister of the National Defense last Jan. 2009, as the meanings that court pointed out the procedural illegality of the naval base business and together with it, ordered [the navy] to accept its decision that the follow-up procedures-such as the consultation for the land compensation, premised on the former- were ‘null.’

이번 판결은 올해 3월의 변경승인처분으로 작년 1월 승인처분에 대한 무효여부 확인이 불필요하다는 국방부측의 주장을 정면으로 부정하고 있다.

The judgment this time is frontally denying the claim by the Ministry of National Defense who has said, because of its amended approval disposal in March [2010], the confirmation process of whether the approval disposal in January [2009] being null or not was unnecessary.

국방부측의 변경승인 처분에도 불구하고, 이는 ▴ 변경승인 처분이 최초의 승인처분을 소멸시키는 처분이 아니라는 점, ▴최초의 승인처분의 ‘유효’를 전제로 한 ‘일련의 절차 및 처분’이 행해지고, 최초의 처분 무효확인여부에 따라 그것의 유효를 전제로 이루어진 각종 처분의 법적 효력이 영향을 받게 된다는 점, ▴ 최초의 처분에 대한 무효여부 판단이 없을 경우, 이를 전제로 한 후속절차에 대한 개별적인 법률 다툼상황에 직면하게 되는 점 등을 이유로 최초 국방부 장관의 승인의 무효확인 필요하다는 입장을 명확히 하고 있다.

Despite the amended approval disposal by the Ministry of the National Defense, the court is clarifying its position that the confirmation on the nullity of the original approval by the Ministry of National Defense [in Jan. 2009] is necessary for the reasons that:

▴The amended approval disposal is not the disposal that makes extinction of the original approval disposal
▴The ‘succession of the procedures and disposals’ are practiced, on the premise of the ‘validity’ of the original approval disposal, and following the matter of whether the validity of the original approval disposal being confirmed or not, the matter of the validities of the various disposals practiced based on the premise of the valid original approval disposal are influenced.
▴If there is no judgment of the confirmation on the original disposal, [one] inevitably faces the situation in which each individual law on the each of the follow-up procedures premised on [the original disposal] is brought to the disputes.

이는 작년 국방부 장관 승인처분에 따른 토지보상 등의 후속절차도 사실상 ‘무효’임을 판단한 것이다. 이미 국방부와 해군 스스로도 작년 국방부장관 승인이 부지확보를 위한 수단임을 강조해 온 바, 이는 승인처분의 무효가 곧 이의 후속으로 추진된 토지보상협의 등의 절차도 당연히 무효임을 스스로 인정한 것에 다름 아니다.

It means that the court judged that the follow-up measures such as the land compensation following the approval disposal by the Minister of the National Defense last year was, in fact, ‘null,’ also. As the Ministry of National Defense and navy have already emphasized themselves that the approval by the Minister of National Defense last year was the step for the acquirement of the lands, it was nothing but that they themselves have acknowledged that the nullity of the approval disposal would naturally mean the procedures- such as the consultation for the land compensation driven as the follow-up measure of the [original approval]- would be the null, as well.

둘째, 이번 판결은 국가안보를 이유로 한 사업일지라도 환경영향평가를 거치지 않는다면, 이는 ‘절대적 무효’임을 분명히 한 사례가 되었다.

Second, the court judgment this time became an example that was clarified with the fact that, even though it was the business under the national security reason, if it did not go through the environmental impact assessment, it was ‘absolutely null.’

국방부측은 이번 소송과정에서 해군기지 사업이 협의매수 면적만을 실제 사업면적으로 봐야 하므로, 환경영향평가 대상이 아님에도 환경의 중요성을 인식해 환경영향평가를 했다는 식의 주장을 선심 쓰듯 해왔다. 그러나 판결은 제주해군기지 사업이 명백한 환경영향평가 대상사업임을 분명히 해 이의 주장에 쐐기를 박았다.

During the process of this lawsuit, the Ministry of National Defense has claimed, as if it is generous, that it has done the environmental impact assessment, recognizing the importance of environment [issue] even though [they think] the naval base business is not the object of the environmental impact assessment, since [according to their logic], only the area size of the purchase by consultation should be seen as the practical area size of the business, However, the court clarifying with its judgment that the Jeju naval base business is clearly the object of the environmental impact assessment, hammered the wedge into the Ministry’s claim of different opinion for itself.

다만, 환경영향평가 내용의 부실에도 불구하고, 이것을 위법하지 않다고 한 판결의 내용은 아쉬움을 밝히지 않을 수 없다. 이는 환경영향평가 제도상의 법률구조적 한계를 법원 스스로도 사실상 인정한 것으로 밖에 안 보인다.

Nevertheless, we cannot but express our sorry feeling about the content of the court decision that said, despite the untrustworthy of its content, the environmental impact assessment did not violate the law. It only appears as the court acknowledged itself the limit of the legal structure in the environmental impact assessment system.

셋째, 이번 판결은 환경영향평가 등 해군기지 사업 절차상의 문제가 제주도에도 그 공동책임이 있음을 밝히고 했다.

Third, the court expressed with its judgment that the Jeju Island had the joint responsibility for the procedural problems in the naval base business, such as those in the environmental impact assessment.

판결은 올해 3월 변경승인처분에서 불구하고, 작년 최초 승인처분으로 인한 하자가 그대로 승계되고 있다는 주민들의 주장에 대해, ▴환경영향평가에 대한 제주도지사의 협의사실, ▴절대보전지역 지정해제 등을 하자승계로 볼 수 없다는 중요한 근거로 들고 있다. 아울러, 환경영향평가의 부실문제도 위법하지 않다는 근거로 제주도지사의 협의사실을 중요하게 지적하고 있다.

On the villagers’ claim that the flaws of the original approval disposal [in 2009] have been intact and successive despite the amended approval disposal this March, the decision of the court is taken with some points as the important basis [being reasoned of why] those cannot be seen as the succession of flaws, such as:

- The fact of the [former Island] governor’s consultation on the environmental impact assessment [with the Island Council that has passed the agendas related to the naval base in the snatched way on Dec. 17, 2010]
- Removal of the designation as the absolute preservation area
Along with it, [the court] is mainly taking the fact of the governor’s consultation as the base [for the judgment] that the issue of the untrustworthy of the environmental impact assessment is not the violation of the law.

이는 그 그 만큼, 위법․부당한 해군기지 추진과정을 정당화하는데 제주도가 앞장서 한몫 했음을 판결로서 증명해주고 있는 것이다.

It means the court proved with its decision that the [former] Jeju Island [government] had the leading role in justifying the illegal, unjust process for the drive of the naval base.

이번 판결과 관련, 우리는 다음과 같은 입장을 밝힌다.

Related to the court decision this time, we express our position as the below:

첫째, 이번 판결은 해군기지 건설사업이 그 절차적 정당성을 상실하였음을 입증한 것이다. 사실, 올해 3월 15일의 변경승인처분도 절차가 잘못되었음을 국방부 스스로 인정한 것이다. 그리고 예상되는 소송결과를 면피하기 위한 편법을 동원한 것에 다름 아니다. 편법이 또 다른 편법을 낳아, 이전의 편법이 편법이 아니라고 하는 식으로 국방부와 해군이 꼼수 행보만을 거듭하고 있음이 이번 판결을 통해 여실히 드러나고 있을 따름이다.

First, the court decision proved that the naval base business lost its procedural validity. In fact, the [Ministry’s] amended approval disposal on March 15, this year showed that the Ministry of National Defense itself had acknowledged that its procedures had been wrong. And [its amended approval disposal] was nothing but the Ministry’s mobilized expediential method to fake skin of the expected lawsuit result. The fact that the Ministry of National Defense and the navy had been repeating their hideous tactics, through the way in which an expediential method had produced another expediential method therefore an expediential method in its former time had become not an expediential method anymore, was being exposed as it was through the court decision this time.

둘째, 그럼에도 또다시 적당히 형식만 꿰맞춰 재절차를 밟으려 한다면, 더 큰 화를 초래하게 될 것이다. 해군측은 벌써부터 다시 절차를 밟더라도 “3~5개월 늦어지지만 문제없다“며, 아전인수격으로 ”해군기지 정당성을 인정받았다“는 입장을 드러내고 있다. 절차적으로 아무런 문제 없다고 호언하던 해군이었다. 국방부와 해군은 문제가 법원의 판결로서 밝혀진 이상, 강정해군기지 사업의 잘못을 지금이라도 겸허하게 인정하고, 전면적이고도 전향적인 검토에 나서야 할 것이다.

Second, despite the above fact, if [the Ministry of National Defense and the navy] try to step on the procedures again only with the repeated sloppy formalities, they will bring the bigger disaster. The navy saying that even though it may step the procedures again, “There should be no problem even though [the construction that has been announced to start in September, 2010] may be delayed 3 to 5 months later, is already exposing its position from its self-centered angle in which it says, “The validity of the naval base business was acknowledged.” It was the navy who had made the bombast remarks that there had been procedurally no problems [in the naval base business plan]. The Ministry of National Defense and navy, now the problems of the procedures have been proved through the judicial decision, should humbly acknowledge their wrongdoings in the Gangjeong naval base business [plan] even yet and should step forward for the total and converting examination [of the plan].

셋째, 우근민 도정은 지난 도정의 무리한 추진과 잘못된 절차를 바로잡는 노력부터 시급히 나서야 한다. 무엇보다 지난 도정의 절대보전지역 해제처분에 대해 도지사 직권으로라도 이의 취소변경 처분에 나서야 한다.

Third, the Woo Geun-Min Island Government should quickly step forward with the effort to fix the unreasonable drive and wrong procedure by the former Island government. Above all, regarding the former Island government’s cancellation disposal of the absolute preservation area, [the Woo government] should step forward for the amended disposal of the cancellation of it, even with the governor’s official authority.

절대보전지역 해제과정은 그야말로 천편일률적이며, 도의회 동의안 처리과정은 위법논란까지 일었다. 국방부는 자신의 절차상의 하자를 치유한다는 명분으로 장관승인을 변경하는 처분을 내놓은 바 있다. 제주도가 위법논란과 무리한 조치라는 지적을 받고 있는 절대보전지역 해제 취소에 나서지 못할 이유가 없다.

The process for the removal of [the designation] of the absolute preservation area was indeed groovy and the process for the disposal on the agreement by the Island Council even raised the controversy on its illegality. The Ministry of National Defense has presented the Minister’s amended disposal [on March 15, 2010] with the pretext that it would cure its own flaws in the procedures. There should be no reason that the Jeju Island [government] cannot step forward for the cancellation of the disposal on the removal of the [designation] of the absolute preservation area.

해군기지 문제의 해결은 행정의 중립을 통한 갈등해결도 중요하지만, 무엇보다 도민여론이 문제있다고 지적하고 있는 절차상의 잘못을 바로잡는 노력부터 전제되어야 할 것이다.

Even though the solution of the conflicts through the neutrality of the administration in the settlement of the naval base [issue] is important, the [Woo government’s] effort, above all, to fix the wrongdoings in the procedures that the Island people have pointed out as the problematic, should be premised.

넷째, 도의회는 이번 판결을 계기로 해군기지 추진에 제동을 거는 노력에 나서야 한다. 이번 판결은 그 동안 반대측이 줄곧 주장해왔던 절차적 정당성의 문제가 사실 임을 입증했다. 도민을 기만한 국방부와 해군의 추진행보에 대한 분명한 입장정리와 문제제기에 임해야 한다. 9대 도의회의 도의원 상당수가 작년 절대보전지역 해제 동의안 처리과정이 ‘잘못됐다’고 입장을 밝히고 있다. 이를 재차 바로잡는 노력은 물론, 이번 기회에 해군기지 유치에 대한 근본적인 검토에 나서야 한다.

Forth, the Island Council should step forward to make an effort to brake onto [the navy’s] drive of the naval base, with the moment of the court decision this time. The court decision this time proved that the problem of the procedural validity that the opponents of the naval base have constantly claimed was the real fact. The Minister of National Defense and navy who have betrayed the Island people should posit themselves with the adjustment of their positions in their drive step and should answer the issues that have been raised [by the Island people]. Numbers of the Island Councilmen in the 9th [new] Island Council are expressing that the disposal process of the agenda on the agreement of the cancellation of [the designation] of the absolute preservation area has been wrong. Not to mention the effort to fix [the wrong process], the Island Council should step forward for the fundamental examination on the invitation of the naval base, upon this chance.

우리는 앞으로 절대보전지역 해제취소 요구 등 강정 해군기지 사업의 전면 재검토를 촉구하는 활동을 더욱 강력하게 벌여나갈 것이다.

In the future, we will more strongly extend the activities to demand the total reexamination of the Gangjeong naval base, including that for the cancellation of the removal of [the designation] of the absolute preservation area.

2010. 7. 16
July 16, 2010