축산업 영업의 전부정지 3개월 처분 취소청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Details of the disposition
The court's explanation on this part is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The disposition of this case by the plaintiff is unlawful on the grounds that the disposition of this case, which is the premise of the disposition of this case, is unlawful on the following grounds, so it should be revoked as unlawful.
The defendant alleged in relation to Article 18 (1) 1 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta which has no grounds for disposal (hereinafter "the Livestock Excreta Act") and the prior notice of the revocation of the permission of this case is that "the plaintiff's farm shall obtain permission for alteration for the expansion of livestock pens and the extension of storage tanks, and it shall be determined that the plaintiff's farm shall be drilling the hole of the old storage tank of this case from the time of the report of alteration or the permission of alteration without knowledge of the relevant administrative agency, and thus, it shall be deemed that "the permission of alteration or the report of alteration has been obtained or made by fraudulent or other illegal means" under Articles 17 (1) and 18 (1) 1 of the Livestock Excreta Act
However, the Plaintiff did not commit fraud, deception, or concealment by submitting a false extension plan with respect to the extension of livestock excreta discharge facilities and disposal facilities in filing an application for permission for alteration or a report on alteration of the instant permission.
The plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works for the extension of the actual emission facilities, etc., and completed a lawful permission for alteration or a report for alteration, and the extension work was carried out accordingly.
The reason cited by the Defendant in the prior notice, namely, that “the Plaintiff caused the contamination, etc. of groundwater by self-discharge of livestock excreta without permission,” does not relate to the grounds for revocation of permission under Article 18(1)1 of the Livestock Excreta Act.
And even through the related criminal case rulings, ‘the old storage tank' in this case.