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 7, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit on the same plant-related facilities (softs and composts, site size 3,627 square meters, building area, and total floor area 1,560 square meters) on the land of Gyeyang-si B and C, and obtained approval for use on June 4, 2010.

From around that time, the Plaintiff is raising approximately KRW 100 lawsuits.

B. On December 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit with the Defendant to extend the same plant-related facilities (a livestock shed and compost shed, a site area of 4,90 square meters, a building area of 2,05 square meters, and a total floor area of 2,05 square meters) on the land (hereinafter “instant land”).

The above application contains an application for permission for development activities as a collective processing.

C. However, on December 27, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-acceptance of the building report (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 58 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 11922, Jul. 16, 2013; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning Act”) on the grounds that the construction report causes inconvenience to residents’ lives due to the extension of the stables, pollution of surrounding environment, and the extension of the stables of a road.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said administrative appeals commission made an adjudication dismissing the relevant claim on April 24, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers if the number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition alleged by the Plaintiff was unlawful since it deviatess from and abused discretionary power for the following reasons.

1 The Plaintiff is against the area of 1,560 square meters on the ground of some of the instant land.