1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 9, 2018, the Defendant issued an order to take measures against the Plaintiff on the grounds that environmental pollution is likely to occur due to the camping-gun B and C’s open oil costs on the land owned by the Plaintiff (the date of the violation on April 20, 2018; the violation of Article 10(2) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta); on June 8, 2018, to order the removal of the open oil and the cleaning of the leaked water, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”); however, the Defendant was not served on the Plaintiff on the grounds of the absence of waste, etc.

B. On June 11, 2018, the Defendant issued an order to take the same measures as the instant disposition (as of June 29, 2018, the implementation period) to the Plaintiff. On August 28, 2018, the Defendant issued an order to remove the deposited compost from the said C and D land and order the Plaintiff to clean the leaked water. On September 28, 2018, the Plaintiff fulfilled the above order to take measures. Around September 2018, the public official affiliated with the Defendant confirmed the order through a field trip on October 1, 2018.

On the other hand, the defendant accused the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff did not comply with the order to take measures on June 11, 2018. The prosecutor of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office suspended the indictment against the plaintiff on October 17, 2018, and the plaintiff filed a constitutional complaint seeking revocation of the disposition to suspend the indictment.

E. The Plaintiff was indicted on April 20, 2018 on the charge that “the Plaintiff’s employee distributed the composts and the water from the composts around B, and then flow them into E through the nearby farm waterways, which are public waters” (Articles 52, 51 subparag. 5, and 10(1) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta). On November 13, 2019, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the ground that “it is difficult to view that the water from the composts was flowing into nearby agricultural waterways, which are public waters.”

(No. 2019No. 241. [Grounds for Recognition] include facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 3, 4, 5, and 7.