2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention in the appeal is assessed against the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

The construction permit disposition rendered against the Defendant’s Intervenor on June 13, 2011 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff (appointed party, hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff")'s claim is dismissed.

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is that the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) are stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following judgments are added to the pertinent part as to the matters alleged in each trial, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination (as to the assertion of the principle of protecting the trust of the defendant and the intervenor)

A. Summary of the defendant and the intervenor's assertion

On August 9, 2010, the Intervenor applied for a building permit, etc. on two animal and plant-related facilities of a size that is not required to conduct a preliminary examination. On August 12, 2010, the Intervenor obtained a building permit from the Defendant on August 12, 2010 for the purpose of building permit, conversion consultation, development activity consultation, and permission to occupy and use a site for animal-related facilities in the producing area, and evaluation of the appropriateness of the installation of livestock excreta facilities. Moreover, on November 2, 2010, the Intervenor filed an application for the building (extension) of the instant case, and notified the Defendant that there was no

Accordingly, the intervenor invested enormous funds for the above facilities. At the time of obtaining the construction permission from the defendant on August 12, 2010, the intervenor obtained trust interest that the above facilities will be installed by obtaining the construction permission from the defendant. Thus, the defendant's disposition of permission to construct the above facilities for the participant is justified in accordance with the principle of trust protection.

B. Determination

1) In general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to an act of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency must express a public opinion that is the subject of trust to an individual; second, the administrative agency should not be responsible to the individual when the expression of opinion is justified; third, the administrative agency should have conducted any act corresponding thereto; fourth, the administrative agency should have made a disposition contrary to the above expression of opinion against the interests of the individual who trusted the expression of opinion; last, when taking an administrative disposition following the above expression of opinion, it should not be likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du19070, Mar. 9, 1999; 200Du8684, Sept. 28, 2001; 200Du4646, Jun. 9, 2006).

In addition, the reason why the principle of trust protection should be applied to the amendment of the law is that if a citizen has formed a certain legal status or living relationship with a specific act corresponding to the law in question, based on a reasonable and reasonable trust that the law will continue to exist in the future, and the state does not protect it at all, the people's trust in the legal order will collapse, make it impossible to expect the future legal effect on the present act, thereby seriously impairing legal stability. However, such trust protection is not absolute or uniform in a certain life area, but can vary depending on freedom, rights, interests, etc. related to each individual case, and if the public interest purpose is superior to that to be realized through a new law, it may be limited in consideration of the above protection principle. Accordingly, in order to determine whether there is a violation of such principle of trust protection, on the one hand, the public interest purpose to be realized through a new law should be compared and balanced (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Du13081, Nov. 16, 2007; 2008Du163016.206.

On the other hand, in cases where the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and ordinances (hereinafter “Acts”) concerning the criteria for building permission are amended, unless otherwise stipulated in the transitional provisions of the newly amended Acts and subordinate statutes, determination of building permission according to the standards prescribed in the amended Acts and subordinate statutes, which were enforced at the time of the disposition is in principle. In relation to the application of such amended Acts and subordinate statutes, if the people’s trust in the continuation of the Acts and subordinate statutes prior to the amendment is deemed more worthy of protection than the public interest demand for the application of the amended Acts and subordinate statutes, there is room for restrictions to protect such public trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du3550, Jul. 29, 2005; 2006Du10931, Jan. 17, 2008).

2) According to the facts that the construction (extension) permission disposition of this case was made pursuant to the principle of trust protection and there is no dispute between the parties, and the facts that the intervenor constructed the above facilities on August 13, 2010 after obtaining a building permit for two animal and plant-related facilities of the building area of 1,455 square meters on the ground from the defendant on August 13, 2010 ( Address 1 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted), and ( Address 2 omitted), 1,455 square meters on the ground, and 1,455 square meters on the building area (one dog, one compost), and thereafter, the intervenor constructed the above facilities to the defendant on May 28, 201, after obtaining a building permit for the construction of the above non-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-s-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-s-g-g-g-g-s-g-g-g-s-g-g-g-s-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-s-g-g-g-g-g-s.

However, the defendant did not recommend twice to apply for the above application for permission of animal and plant-related facilities to the intervenors, and the defendant, before granting the above building permission on August 13, 2010, delivered the intervenors with the opinion that the above animal and plant-related facilities can be permitted to be permitted at the shortest time through civil petitions, etc. The defendant is the defendant. Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 7, the defendant received the application for permission of construction of the above animal and plant-related facilities from the intervenors, and on January 11, 2011, urged the intervenors to take measures to reflect the above project plan in accordance with Article 25-6 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy. Thus, it is difficult to view that the intervenor's reliance on the construction of the above animal and plant-related facilities within the 2-dong area (one Dong, one non-permanent building, one non-permanent building, and one non-permanent village-related facility within the 10th local government ordinance and the 10th local government ordinance on the construction of the above building.

In addition, considering the purport of the former Ordinance on Livestock Excreta (wholly amended by Ordinance No. 996, Oct. 7, 2011; hereinafter “the first amended Ordinance”) that amended the part of “within 100 meters” of Article 3(3) [Attachment 1] of the Ordinance on the Enactment of December 3, 2010 to “within 50 meters” as “within the scope of 500 meters,” it cannot be readily concluded that the Intervenor’s trust in the continuation of the provisions of the previous Ordinance on the enactment of the Ordinance is more worthy of protection than the public interest pursued by the first amended Ordinance, in view of the following: (a) the natural environment and living environment are clean; and (b) the pollution of water is reduced; and (c) it is aimed at improving citizens’ health and environmental conservation.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed justifiable to allow the building (extension) of this case to the intervenor in accordance with the principle of trust protection. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant and the intervenor is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judge Lee Chang-hoon (Presiding Judge)