1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Details of the disposition

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to the instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.

In giving prior notice of the instant disposition, the Defendant alleged in relation to Article 18(1)1 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta which has no grounds for disposal (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”) stated that “the Plaintiff’s farm shall obtain permission for alteration for the expansion of livestock pens and the extension of storage tanks, and shall be determined to be drilling the hole of the previous storage tank from the time of the report of alteration or the permission of alteration without knowledge of the relevant administrative agency, and thus, it shall be deemed that “the Plaintiff’s farm is subject to permission for alteration or the report of alteration, or the report of alteration, by fraudulent or other illegal means” under Articles 17(1) and 18(1)1 of the Livestock Excreta Act.

However, the Plaintiff did not commit fraud, deception, or concealment by submitting a false extension plan with respect to the extension of livestock excreta discharge facilities and disposal facilities in filing an application for permission for alteration or a report on alteration of the instant permission.

The plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works for the extension of the actual emission facilities, etc., and completed a lawful permission for alteration or a report for alteration, and the extension work was carried out accordingly.

The reason cited by the Defendant in the prior notice, namely, that “the Plaintiff caused the contamination, etc. of groundwater by self-discharge of livestock excreta without permission,” does not relate to the grounds for revocation of permission under Article 18(1)1 of the Livestock Excreta Act.

In addition, through the relevant criminal case judgment, the part of the facts charged that “the livestock excreta was discharged without permission by using rubber straws by drilling the hole of the old storage tank of this case.”