1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 26, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased swine breeding facilities and treatment facilities located in B and three parcels of land (hereinafter “instant livestock shed”) during the auction procedure, and succeeded to the status of the Plaintiff’s livestock breeding business (livestock breeding business) as to the instant livestock shed on January 22, 201.

B. On May 2, 2016, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s permission to install a livestock excreta discharge facility (hereinafter “instant revocation disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “the Plaintiff’s failure to raise livestock for at least three years without good cause” under Article 18(1)2 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “ Livestock Excreta Act”).

C. On August 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Defendant stating that the instant livestock shed included the subject matter of the government’s policy to be lawful for livestock pens without permission (hereinafter “instant application”). As such, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition accompanied by an implementation plan to be lawful for livestock pens without permission (hereinafter “instant application”).

However, on December 12, 2018, the Defendant rejected the instant application (hereinafter “instant return disposition”) on the ground that “it is difficult to view the instant application as lawful if there was no raising of livestock for a regular period of time (at least three years) and no livestock is raised at present.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the invalidity or legitimacy of each of the dispositions in this case

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition revoking the permission of this case is significant and apparent and invalid for the following reasons. (A) The Defendant stated that “the Plaintiff did not raise livestock for at least three years without good cause” as the grounds for the instant disposition revoking the permission, but specified only the date and time of the violation as of January 20, 2016 without specifying the starting point for the period of violation of the Livestock Excreta Act.

(2) The defendant's disposition of revoking the permission of this case.