A. The Plaintiff is a person who raises Chinese friendship in the South-Namn Navy B.

B. On February 21, 2012, a public veterinarian affiliated with the South Navy visited the Plaintiff’s livestock shed and contact with the Plaintiff for the prevention of the foot-and-mouth (hereinafter “the instant vaccination”). On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of compensation under the Prevention of Contagious Diseases Act on February 23, 2012, the Plaintiff rejected the claim against the Plaintiff for the said compensation on the following grounds (hereinafter “the instant disposition”). < Amended by Act No. 12548, May 2, 2014; Act No. 12093, Feb. 23, 2012; Act No. 12874, May 2, 2014; Act No. 12953, May 2, 2014; Act No. 1294, May 2, 2014>

In relation to the livestock industry and the 11717 ( May 26, 2011), in relation to the "Notice of Methods of prompt payment of the Remedial Disease and AI Death compensation", it is difficult to inform that the demand for the application for the delivery of the thickness will not be accepted due to the abolition of the compensation from June 1, 2011 to the temporary transition of the remedy station.

D. Meanwhile, on May 26, 2011, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs notified the head of the metropolitan organization, including the Gyeongnam-do, to the effect that the compensation for burial can be paid smoothly in order to support the re-re-issuance through early re-entry of the divers and AI damaged farmers. On May 26, 201, the Minister notified the head of the metropolitan organization, including the Do governor, of the plan for prompt payment of burial compensation. On May 26, 2011, the Gyeongnam-do governor notified the head of the local government in the Gyeongnam-do, including the defendant, of the plan for prompt payment of burial compensation (as stated in attached Table 1), according to the "plan for prompt payment of burial compensation", among the compensation under subparagraph 1 (a) of subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases Act, the compensation for back from June 1, 2011 at all times (hereinafter referred to as "the guideline for prompt payment of burial compensation").

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since Korea-Japan died due to the side effects of the vaccination of this case, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the compensation for the instant oriental medicine pursuant to the Contagious Animal Disease Prevention Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Nevertheless, the Defendant, based on the guidelines of this case, abolished the back of the back-to-date compensation for losses caused by the back-time back-of-the-counter marriage, based on the guidelines of this case. The guidelines of this case provide that no compensation for losses caused by the back-of-the-counter marriage shall be paid in violation of the Contagious Animal Disease Prevention Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which are superior laws and subordinate statutes, and thus, the dispositions of this case based thereon are unlawful

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant guidelines violate the superior laws and regulations

A) Articles 15(1) and 48(1)1 of the Contagious Animal Disease Prevention Act provide that "the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun/autonomous Gu may order the owner of livestock, etc. to take measures, such as injection, in order to prevent the outbreak or spread of contagious animal diseases, such as a remedy station, and the State or a local government shall pay compensation to the owner of livestock who died or injured due to the above injection, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 11(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the standards and methods for the payment of compensation" and Article 11(2) of the same Act provides that "the criteria and methods for the evaluation of livestock, etc. according to the criteria for the payment of compensation under paragraph (1), the standards and methods for the calculation of appraised values by type of livestock,

B) According to the above provisions, the State or local governments should pay compensation within the limit of 80/100 of the appraised value of the livestock at the time of vaccination of the dead livestock due to the vaccination of the foot-and-mouth disease. The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs can determine the criteria and methods for assessing livestock, standards for calculating the appraised value by type of livestock, and other detailed matters concerning the assessment of livestock, and there is no authority to limit the scope of "persons subject to compensation" under each subparagraph of Article 48 (1) of the same Act. However, since the guidelines of this case include the abolition of the payment of compensation for back-and-mouth damage from June 1, 201 to the foot-and-mouth disease prevention Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act delegated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, which goes beyond the scope of delegation of the above Act and subordinate statutes, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it goes beyond the scope of delegation of the above guidelines.

2) Determination as to the Defendant’s additional assertion of grounds for disposition

The Defendant added the grounds for the disposition that the instant disposition is lawful on the ground that “the instant vaccination had no medical problem in the instant vaccination, and the death of the instant oriental medicine is due to the side effects of secondary infections due to an unsanitary livestock environment, not a side effect of vaccination, and thus does not constitute the subject of compensation.” However, the aforementioned grounds for the disposition are different from the original grounds for the disposition and its contents and purport, and the basic facts cannot be deemed identical. Therefore, the Defendant is not allowed to add the above grounds for the disposition. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit without having to be examined further.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-do

Judges Park Jae-young