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 January 17, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased 1,900 square meters and 6 lots (hereinafter “instant land”) from Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and applied for a building permit including an application for the permission to divert farmland to the Defendant on the 21st day of the same month (hereinafter “instant application”) in order to newly build six Dong and plant-related facilities with a total building area of 8,479 square meters on the above land.

B. Meanwhile, the “Ordinance on Restriction on Livestock Raising by Jeju-gun” was partially amended on February 22, 2013, and the area in which pigs, chickens, and ducks are restricted to be “1,500 meters or less from the boundary line of the shortest distance housing site” was expanded to “1,500 meters or less from the boundary line of the original housing site.” On March 13, 2013, the topographical map of the area in which livestock raising is restricted was publicly announced.

(Public Notice D and Revised Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case") shall be amended, and the previous Ordinance shall be amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Gu Ordinance").

Based on Article 8(1) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, Article 3 of the Ordinance of this case, and Articles 1 and 2 of the Addenda, the Defendant, on March 29, 2013, on the ground that the instant land constitutes a restricted area for raising livestock, pursuant to Article 3(3) of the Ordinance of this case, constitutes a restricted area for raising livestock.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7, and 9 (each entry, including a serial number, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although Article 8(1)1 of the Act on the Invalidity of Livestock Excreta of the Plaintiff’s Claim 1 provides that livestock raising may be restricted with respect to “an area in need of the protection of living environment in a residential densely-populated area”, Article 3(1) of the Ordinance of this case provides that approximately 9.14% of the total area of the granted military units shall be included in a restricted area for livestock raising, thereby excessively expanding the scope of restriction on livestock raising.