A. The Plaintiff, as the representative of the owner of B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and the owner of money on the ground of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant money”). The Plaintiff is a person who is operating livestock excreta discharge facilities (i.e., permit number: 6.84 cubic meters in volume 6.84 cubic meters in volume 6.84 cubic meters in volume 3:3,67.9 square meters in size) with permission.

K is a person who actually manages and operates the above money as his father.

B. On February 22, 2019, the Defendant discharged livestock excreta in custody on January 8, 2019 (hereinafter “instant storage tank”) to the Plaintiff without passing through the final discharge outlet.

“A warning disposition was issued on the ground of “the instant warning disposition” (hereinafter “the instant warning disposition”) No. 1 emission incident. C.

On September 16, 2019, the Defendant did not recycle livestock excreta flowing into the instant facilities for the treatment of livestock excreta on August 1, 2019, and discharged livestock excreta without going through the final discharge outlet.

“For the reason that the revocation was made for the permission for the installation of a facility for discharging excreta (hereinafter “instant revocation disposition”), the second emission accident (“instant revocation disposition”) / [Grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, the entire purport of the pleading, including Gap 1-7, 11, Eul 1-6, 18, and all of the arguments.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. 1 Concerning the instant warning disposition, the instant storage tank does not constitute a treatment facility that goes through the final discharge outlet.

Therefore, the first emission accident cannot be seen as an intermediate emission without going through this final discharge outlet.

2) The discharge in the first emission accident was previously converted into resources.

B. In light of the fact that the second emission accident was caused by the negligence of the employee in charge and that it was not caused by intention or gross negligence with respect to the instant disposition of revocation, the instant disposition of revocation was unlawful by abusing discretion.

3. Article 17(1)2 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”) provides that “a person who installs a discharge facility and his/her discharge facility.”