2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be the supplementary participation.

A. The Plaintiffs are residents residing in the Hamp-gun in the Hamyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

B. From around January 1994, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) laid down a map of 2,714m2 on the land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant application site”) other than Pyeongtaek-gun X and three lots (hereinafter referred to as the “instant application site”), and raised chickens. Around January 3, 1997, the Intervenor filed a report on the installation of livestock excreta on the said chickens breeding facilities.

C. On November 6, 2014, the Intervenor rendered an application for a building permit (hereinafter “instant application”) to construct the same and plant-related facilities with a total floor area of 3,215.7 square meters in the application site of the instant case (hereinafter “instant fraternity”) to the Defendant who destroyed the said fraternity and filed the instant application.

On November 10, 2014, in accordance with the above application, the Hamyeong-gun requested consultation as to whether the application of this case, which removes the existing guidance and newly constructs new guidances in accordance with Article 11(5) of the Building Act, constitutes a restriction on activities in the area where livestock raising is restricted.

In this regard, on November 21, 2014, the Ministry of Environment stated that the reporting and discharge facilities of the instant site are located in the area where livestock raising is restricted (or all livestock) but it is possible to extend or rebuild the existing livestock raising facilities within the limit of 50% of the building area of the existing livestock raising facilities in accordance with Article 4(4) of the Ordinance on Restriction on Livestock Raising of Hanyeong-gun.

E. On November 21, 2014, the Defendant permitted the instant application (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 32 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs’ assertion and relevant statutes

A. According to Article 4(4) and (5) of the former Ordinance on the Restriction of Livestock Raising by the Plaintiffs’ Claim (amended by the former Ordinance No. 2241, Dec. 4, 2015; hereinafter “Faim-Gun Ordinance”), the relative area of livestock raising is subject to restriction.