1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 10, 2006, the Plaintiff reported the installation of livestock excreta emission facilities to the Defendant with respect to facilities related to the same plant and plant (the livestock shed; hereinafter “the livestock shed of this case”) in Naju City, and obtained permission from the Defendant on March 2, 2006 for the construction of the livestock shed of this case.

The Plaintiff started to set up the instant livestock shed from April 20, 2006, and obtained approval for use on November 14, 2007, and completed registration of preservation of ownership of the instant livestock shed on February 12, 2008.

B. On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant to allow the Defendant to engage in livestock breeding business at the instant livestock shed, and the Defendant rejected the said application on January 26, 2017.

On April 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the above rejection disposition with the Gwangju District Court 2017Guhap11138, and the above court rendered a judgment revoking the above rejection disposition on September 14, 2017 on the ground that the above rejection disposition violated the duty to present reasons under Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act and Articles 14(2) and 14-2(2) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Livestock Industry Act and the notification that it would conflict with the requirements for permission and registration of livestock farming, and that it does not constitute a case where the raising of livestock under Article 3 of the Ordinance on the Restriction of Livestock Raising in Jeju is restricted. The above judgment became final and conclusive on October 11, 2017.

C. On January 5, 2018, the Defendant issued an order to close down the instant livestock shed pursuant to Article 18(1)2 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “ Livestock Excreta Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not raise livestock for at least three years without justifiable grounds.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant did not give the Plaintiff an opportunity to submit prior notice or opinion while rendering the instant disposition.

(b) Article 17 [Attachment VII] of the Enforcement Rule of the Livestock Excreta Act is legitimate.