2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff refers to C, D, E, F, G, H, and I land in the Gyeongnam Development Group and seven parcels of land, Gyeongnam Development Group B and 7.

(2) On November 11, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for a construction permit in the form of complex civil petitions (hereinafter “instant application”) including an application for permission to engage in development activities on the instant application site, an application for permission to install livestock excreta discharge facilities, etc. on November 11, 2014 (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. Meanwhile, the “Ordinance on the Restriction on Management and Livestock Raising of Hayang-gun Livestock Excreta (Ordinance No. 1910 of the Gyeongnam-do)” which was in force at the time of the application of the instant case was partially amended on November 21, 2014, which expanded the area subject to the restriction on livestock raising from “within 500 meters in a straight line to the site boundary where livestock are raised within the boundary of a site located within the boundary of a site where the previous residential concentrated area was located.”

(Article 2050 of the Ordinance on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta”) (Article 2050 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “the Act”) shall apply to the previous Ordinance, and the previous Ordinance shall be referred to as the “former Ordinance”).

(2) The livestock breeding is not feasible because it constitutes a restricted area for livestock breeding under Article 8 of the Act or Article 10(1)4 of the Ordinance of this case.

C. On December 10, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rejection of the instant application on the following grounds:

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(ii) [Grounds for recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 and 3 (if available, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply);

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 did not clearly state what the instant application violated the statutory requirements at the time of the instant disposition, and the Plaintiff’s answer that the instant disposition was made by applying the instant Municipal Ordinance to the Plaintiff’s questionnaire.