1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of appeal, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of the instant case by the court of first instance are as follows: Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”)’s assertion in each trial are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the following judgments are added to the pertinent part, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of 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. On August 9, 2010, the summary of the Defendant and the Intervenor filed an application for a building permit, etc. with respect to two animal and plant-related facilities of a size of which the prior examination of environmental feasibility is unnecessary. On August 12, 2010, the Defendant obtained a building permit for the said facilities, such as 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. On November 2, 2010, the Defendant and the Intervenor filed an application for the instant construction (extension) permission and notified that there was no restriction under the relevant statutes as a result of consultation.

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. In general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the act of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency must express a public opinion that is the subject of trust to the individual, second, the administrative agency's opinion that is justified is not attributable to the individual, and third, the individual trust the expression of opinion.