1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was granted permission for the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities from Gohap-gun, Gohap-gun, to operate the instant discharge facilities with the trade name “C” (hereinafter “instant discharge facilities”).

B. The Plaintiff was discovered by the Defendant on the ground that it violated Article 17(1)2 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta by discharging livestock excreta flowing into a disposal facility of each of the instant discharging facilities without converting the livestock excreta into resources on May 23, 2013 and September 6, 2013.

C. Accordingly, on November 15, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to suspend the instant discharge facilities for six months from May 15, 2014, which was the six-month grace period, to November 14, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the same livestock excreta Act twice a year.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Even if the Plaintiff intentionally installed the intermediate discharge facility in the process of disposing of livestock excreta, or did not install the intermediate discharge facility, it can be deemed a violation of Article 17(1)2 of the Livestock Excreta Act only if it is equivalent thereto. In the case of the Plaintiff, the first discharge of livestock excreta, which occurred on May 23, 2013, was an accident caused by the malfunction of safety device to be suspended when a certain level of water was generated. Since the Plaintiff did not pollute the surrounding environment due to the outflow of excreta, the intermediate discharge was not practically carried out, and thus, it does not constitute an objectively violating the said legal provision.

Furthermore, the instant disposition is a harsh disposition that actually connects to the closure of the instant emission facility, and thus, is significant imbalance between the public interest to be achieved due to the instant disposition and the disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff.