1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following matters, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2, part 4 and 5’s “one attached building” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant money death”) is added next to the “one annexed building.”

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant application is located within 1,000 meters from a dormitory for Asan-si, E Village, and Budget C (hereinafter “instant case C”) which is a residential densely-populated area where not less than 5 houses prescribed in the attached Table in Article 3 related [Attachment Table] of the instant Ordinance are formed.

B) In granting permission for the instant application as to the ground for disposition No. 2, there are concerns over infringement of the agricultural environment or residential environment due to erosion, malodor, and water pollution of good farmland, and there are public interest grounds for which the application cannot be permitted. 2) As to the ground for disposition No. 1 of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use (hereinafter “Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use”).

According to Articles 5 and 8, when designating a livestock breeding-restricted zone under Article 8 of the Livestock Excreta Act, the topographical map was prepared and published in the bulletin of the local government, but the defendant omitted the publication of the topographical map on April 15, 2016. The designation of a livestock breeding-restricted zone under the Ordinance of this case does not take effect, and the designation of a livestock breeding-restricted zone under the Ordinance of this case takes effect, and even if the designation of a livestock breeding-restricted zone takes effect, the dormitory of this case does not fall under a residential smuggling-restricted zone as defined in Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Ordinance of this case, and the distance from the above C dormitory to the application of this case exceeds 1,000 meters.