1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating an original livestock shed (hereinafter “instant livestock shed”) with the trade name called “C” in Naju-si.

B. On November 26, 2010, the Plaintiff supplied each of the 14,800 Oral Organisms (Liopia) and 12,000 Oral Organisms (Liopia) on December 17, 2010 and raised at the livestock shed of this case, respectively.

C. From January 8, 2011 to January 13, 2011, the Defendant: (a) set up a dangerous area within 3 km from an AI-generating farmer in accordance with the AI emergency action guidelines; and (b) set a boundary area within 3 km from half radius to 10km from each farm located in the danger area and the boundary area pursuant to Article 19 of the former Animal Disease Prevention Act (Amended by Act No. 10427, Jan. 24, 2011); and (c) on the movement restriction order issued to each farm located in the boundary area and each farm located in the boundary area, “the prohibition of early growth, and permission for shipment to the designated slaughterhouse in the event of voice after the blood colon examination at least three days prior to shipping.”

On the other hand, the Plaintiff reported the suspicion of AI to the Defendant on January 10, 201, and received an order to restrict the movement from the Defendant on the same day, and issued an order to restrict the movement from the Defendant on January 13, 201, on the ground that the instant cattle shed falls under the boundary area from the AI-generating farm (Saju E).

(hereinafter the above order to restrict the movement of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “order to restrict the movement of this case”).

On January 10, 2011, the Plaintiff, via the Defendant, requested a blood test to the Jeonnam-do Livestock Sanitation Business Office (hereinafter “Seoulnam Livestock Sanitation Business Office”). On January 16, 201, the Defendant was notified of the result of the blood test by the Jeonnam Food Sanitation Business Office, and was thereby informed of the voice test, and the Plaintiff sent 1,780 of the original 1,780 on January 17, 201.

F. On January 23, 201, the Plaintiff reported the suspicion of AI to the Defendant through the Defendant.