1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-acceptance of a building report against the Plaintiff on October 16, 2019 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 20, 2019, the Plaintiff newly constructed an animal and plant-related facility (a stable; hereinafter “the instant livestock shed”) with a total floor area of 700 square meters and a total floor area of 3,773 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”) that raises a lawsuit in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “instant application site”) to the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant report”). The instant report included permission for development activities and permission for installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities as a package of disposition.

The ground for non-repair - The construction of a stable in accordance with the guidelines for the operation of permission for development activities, Article 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as the "National Land Planning Act"), Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the guidelines for the operation of permission for development activities, shall take into account the occurrence of pests, such as malodor in the relevant area and its neighboring areas, concerns over environmental pollution caused by air pollution, soil

On October 16, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant report was not accepted for the following reasons:

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case")

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on December 23, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 2, 5, and 6 (if there is a tentative number, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the instant disposition was infinite administrative act, the Defendant did not give prior notice to the Plaintiff regarding the instant disposition and did not give an opportunity to present opinions. As such, the instant disposition was erroneous in violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2) Since the instant construction of livestock pens was conducted on ordinary farmland without cutting and raising land, it is not subject to permission for development activities.