1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-permission on April 19, 2016 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission for construction (hereinafter “instant application”) with the purport that six Dong-related facilities (a stable) with a building area of 4,684 square meters in size (hereinafter “instant livestock shed”) on the land outside B and two lots (hereinafter “instant application site”).

In order to rationalize agricultural management, the filing of the instant application is anticipated to cause inconvenience to agricultural management due to the arable area where facilities for modernization of agricultural facilities, such as farming roads and farming roads, and large-scale vehicle traffic, etc., and as livestock excreta generated from concentrating rain C is anticipated to be discharged into neighboring farmland and inland waters when the instant application is flooded, thereby causing damage to nearby farmland and inland waters, and thus, it would be prejudicial to public interest. On April 19, 2016, the Defendant issued a non-permission disposition against the Plaintiff on the instant application on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission. However, the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 20, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleading as to the disposition of this case as a whole, is not limited to construction activities as provided by the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter the "National Land Planning Act"), but it is not limited to construction activities as provided by the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter the "National Land Planning Act"), and it damages the residential environment of neighboring residents by constructing the instant stable.

It is nothing more than the defendant's vague argument that causes damage to agricultural management or damage to agricultural management.

In addition, there are no cases where neighboring farmland has been flooded due to the defluence of the Cdam, and even if it is.