2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit (hereinafter referred to as “instant application”) with a view to newly constructing three identical and plant-related facilities of 4,806m2 on the ground of 7,295m2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant application site”) with the total floor space of 4,806m2 on the ground.

On June 28, 2016, on July 29, 2016, the Defendant sent a public notice to the Plaintiff stating that the Plaintiff was not entitled to partial restriction on livestock raising pursuant to Article 11 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta”) on the grounds that consultation with the environment on the permission for the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities under Article 11 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, which is the matters subject to deemed disposal of building permission, and that the Plaintiff’s request for supplementation was made on the ground that there was consultation with the Plaintiff on the installation of livestock waste discharge facilities within an area less than 1,000 meters of partial restriction on livestock raising pursuant to the former Ordinance on the Restriction on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta Livestock Invested in Chungcheongnam-do, 2017

On August 9, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to return the instant application to the effect that “The instant application was requested to supplement the instant application as follows, but is not supplemented within the deadline, and thus returned.”

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including the number of each unit; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to the disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, Eul dormitory is not a residential smuggling area (including a natural village where more than five houses are built) as defined in Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Ordinance of this case, but not only the distance from C dormitory building to the place of application of this case exceeds 1,000 meters, but also the claim that the application of this case is located within 1,000 meters from Asan City D and E villages is not included in the grounds for disposition of this case. Thus, it is allowed to add the grounds for disposition.