1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B obtained permission for the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities from the Defendant to raise chickens in a stable with a size of 2,496 square meters on the ground of the 2,496 square meters in the area located in the territory of Jeonbuk-gun (hereinafter “the livestock shed in this case”).

B. On January 31, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a report on the succession of status from B to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant accepted the report on the succession of status on February 9, 2018.

C. On February 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a report on the change of livestock excreta discharge facilities (hereinafter “instant report on change”) with the content of changing livestock excreta from chickens to pigs.

On February 20, 2018, pursuant to Article 8 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”) and Articles 3 and 4(1) of the Ordinance on the Restriction of Livestock Raising in Buan-gun (amended by Ordinance No. 2371, Apr. 30, 2018; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”), the Defendant rejected the instant report on alteration of livestock in the livestock shed of this case on the ground that it cannot be conducted within the area where livestock raising is restricted because it constitutes a new construction of livestock shed, and thus, it cannot be conducted within the area where livestock raising is restricted.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 8(1) of the Plaintiff’s assertion of livestock excreta Act and Article 4(1) of the instant Ordinance stipulate that livestock raising and new construction or extension of livestock pens shall not be allowed within a zone where livestock raising is restricted. However, Article 4(2)7 of the instant Ordinance stipulates that livestock raising, etc. may be allowed in cases of reconstruction or reconstruction of existing livestock pens without increasing the area of the land within the exclusion zone.

In the case of the change of this case, even though the plaintiff simply changed the type of livestock without new construction or extension, it was illegal to regard it as a new construction of livestock pens.

(b)as shown in the attached text of the relevant statute;