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

A. The Plaintiff is a company aimed at managing agricultural and livestock products and its incidental business.

B. On January 3, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit for new construction of animal and plant-related facilities (such as originals) from the Defendant on the Hamyeong-gun B and one parcel (hereinafter “instant application site”) from the Defendant. On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for change of the building permit with the content that the main purpose was changed to animal and plant-related facilities (insoms).

C. On April 10, 2017, the Defendant rendered a non-permission disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant application had neighboring houses within 600 meters as the relative restriction zone under Article 4(2) of the former Ordinance on the Restriction of Livestock Raising by Hamyeong-gun (amended by the former Ordinance No. 2350, May 15, 2017; hereinafter “Ordinance of the Hamyeong-gun”). D.

On May 26, 2017, the Defendant responded to the purport that the instant disposition was rendered on the Plaintiff’s petition for civil petition filed by the Plaintiff requesting the instant disposition, on the grounds that there were 6 real estate units 2 or 7 real estate units as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “instant table”) within 600 meters of the date of the instant application.

The purpose of each statement, whole oral argument, and each statement, each of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 1 (including number, hereinafter the same shall apply) No. 1, 3, 5, 1 (including number, 2), 2, 3, 5, 1, 2, 6, 6, 7, 7, 5, 5, 7, 5, 6, 7, 7, 6, 7, 6, 7, 7, 6, 6, 7, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 1, 1 (including number, 3, 5, 5, 1, 1, 2, 5, 5, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 1, 1, 3, 5, 1, 1, 3, and 5, 1, 3, and 1.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion of this case.