1. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s waste recycling report on the ground that the instant farm constitutes an area where the distance from the F Village E located in 46 households does not exceed 500 meters and constitutes an area where the raising of livestock is restricted pursuant to Article 3(3) of the Ordinance on the Restriction of Livestock Breeding (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”), on the ground that it constitutes an area where the raising of livestock is restricted pursuant to Article 3(3) of the said Ordinance, the Defendant’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s waste recycling report on the ground that Article 3(3) of the instant Ordinance exceeds the scope delegated by the former Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (amended by Act No. 10893, Jul. 21, 2011; hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”) and thus, the Plaintiff’s waste recycling report cannot be returned pursuant to the said Ordinance.

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Where an Act or subordinate statute delegates a certain matter to a municipal ordinance, determination of whether the municipal ordinance complies with the limits of delegation shall also be made by comprehensively examining the legislative purpose and contents of the relevant statutory provision, the structure of the provision, and the relationship with other provisions. The language and text of the delegation provision clearly state the scope of delegation by using terms with which the meaning can be clearly known, and whether it goes beyond the limits of the meaning of the terms used in the delegation provision or by expanding or reducing the scope of delegation beyond the meaning of the terms used in the delegation provision, and whether it may be deemed that a new legislation has been made beyond the concrete

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du25077, Oct. 25, 2012). B

The head of Si/Gun/Gu shall preserve the living environment of local residents.