1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 8, 2004, the Plaintiff obtained permission for the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities from the Defendant and operated an animal and plant facility with a total floor area of 4,450.84 square meters in Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant application site”) in the area of 4,450.84 square meters (hereinafter “instant fish farm”), and obtained permission for the alteration of construction from the Defendant on August 5, 201 to the total floor area of 5,278.84 square meters (the extension of the area of the instant fish farm to 828 square meters).

B. On the other hand, on July 29, 2011, the Defendant enacted the Ordinance on Restriction on Livestock Raising (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) and accordingly, designated and publicly announced the area subject to restriction on livestock raising on February 20, 2012 (public notification of topographic drawings in the area subject to restriction on livestock raising (No. 2012-7, February 20, 2012), and the instant application constitutes an area subject to restriction on livestock raising under the said public notification.

C. On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application with the Defendant for permission to alter the construction of 1,053 square meters in total floor area (hereinafter “instant application”); (b) on September 5, 2014, the Defendant denied the instant application on the grounds that the instant application was subject to reporting of alteration pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta”), or that the instant application was designated and publicly announced as an area subject to livestock breeding restriction pursuant to the instant Ordinance, and thus prohibited the extension of discharge facilities, on the grounds that the instant application was designated and publicly announced as an area subject to livestock breeding restriction.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap’s 1 through 5, entry of Eul’s 1 through 3, each entry of Eul’s 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant Ordinance, which served as the basis for the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, presents the abstract and vague grounds for “the preservation of the living environment and water quality of residents”.