1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following addition to the text of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it shall be cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the 6th page of the first instance judgment, the following contents are added to the Plaintiff’s 14th page 14. The Plaintiff’s 10-120-dried and used in combination with general soil companies for 100-120 days after the Plaintiff’s recycled products have been built for 10-120 days, and the Plaintiff passed the appropriate test. However, as a result of the analysis of specialized companies, the Plaintiff asserted that there was no detection of any substance harmful to the environment. However, it can be confirmed only if there was no specific harmful substance from recycled wastes or soil companies submitted by the Plaintiff to the inspection agency, and the safety of the Plaintiff’s agricultural products or human body cannot be said to have been entirely verified. As seen earlier, the competent Mayor/Do governor granted wide discretion on whether to allow recycling of agricultural waste discharged from farmland, and the safe management of farmland was directly associated with agricultural products produced, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s aforementioned results of the examination were sufficient to ensure the safety of the Plaintiff’s recyclable wastes treatment.

The safety of recycled wastes as farmland banking materials shall require experiments and observation for a reasonable period of time, taking into account water movement characteristics, etc. of soil.