1. On October 20, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of non-permission on construction permission against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for a construction permit (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant to newly construct a stable, the building area of which is approximately KRW 3,480 square meters on the ground of three lots (hereinafter “instant application site”) located on the land (hereinafter “instant application site”).

B. On July 2, 2015 and August 5, 2015, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement the submission of a small-scale environmental impact assessment report on the instant application.

C. Meanwhile, the former Ordinance on Restriction on Livestock Raising of Geumsan-gun (amended by the Ordinance No. 1996, Sept. 7, 2015; hereinafter “former Ordinance”) stipulated 400 meters from the area of residential smuggling (five or more households) as the minimum distance for restriction on livestock raising. However, the previous Ordinance was amended by the Ordinance on Restriction on Livestock Raising of Geumsan-gun (amended by the Ordinance No. 1996, Sept. 7, 2015; hereinafter “the instant Ordinance”). The instant Ordinance stipulated 1,200 meters from the residential smuggling area (five or more households) as the minimum distance for restriction on livestock raising.

The application of this case is located within 682 meters in a straight line from the village, which is the nearest residential congested area.

E. On October 20, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant application was inappropriate for permission on the ground that “the instant application constitutes an area subject to restrictions on raising livestock under the instant Ordinance.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute; Gap evidence 1 through 6; Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant Ordinance practically prevents livestock raising, such as chickens, and thus, the instant Ordinance undermines the sustainable development of the livestock industry in harmony with the environment, and thus, the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, which is a superior statute, (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”).