1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 24, 2016, the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as “the Intervenor”) filed a construction permit to newly build Dong and plant-related facilities of a building area of 1,550 square meters (1,250 square meters, composts, 300 square meters) with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and obtained the construction permit on December 29, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “instant permission”), and obtained the construction permit on March 14, 2017 and on July 12, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant permission”), and completed construction works on April 5, 2019 after obtaining the said permission and the permission for the alteration thereof, and obtained the approval for the use from the Defendant on May 9, 2019.

B. The Plaintiff is residing in the authorization in Yong-Namnam-gun, and the said authorization is located between 100m and 200m from the land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. According to the Ordinance on Areas where the raising of livestock by Mine-gun is restricted (hereinafter “Yong-gun Ordinance”), the instant land constitutes a relative restricted area, and the auxiliary intervenor must obtain consent from at least 80% of the householder of the authorization within 200 meters from the instant land.

However, the authorization within 200 meters from the land of this case is seven including the plaintiff's place of residence, and since the supplementary intervenor did not meet the above requirements with the consent of two places of residence among this case, the permission of this case is unlawful.

B. According to Article 3 of the Addenda to the Mine-gun Ordinance (amended by December 27, 2010), a person who installs and operates a livestock raising facility may extend the existing facility area only by up to 50% with the consent of at least 70% of the head of the household in the area in which livestock raising is restricted. Since the supplementary intervenor obtained permission to change the contents of the extension of a house exceeding the subsidy intervenor, each of the instant permission to change the contents