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 is a corporation that produces manure using livestock excreta after reporting the recycling of livestock excreta to the Defendant.

B. On December 22, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff violated the standards for the installation and operation of a livestock excreta recycling facility under Article 27(3) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta and Article 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act by stockpiling approximately 8,000 tons of composts produced by the Plaintiff on the outdoor floor and storing only vinyls.

C. Accordingly, on February 5, 2016, the Defendant issued an improvement order pursuant to Article 27(4) of the Livestock Excreta Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s aforementioned act violated Article 27(3) of the Livestock Excreta Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant: (a) disposed of the instant livestock excreta on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 28 [Attachment 10] subparagraph 2 (b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Livestock Excreta Act regarding the method of storing livestock excreta by storing livestock excreta in outdoor; (b) the Plaintiff’s custody at the time is not livestock excreta but excreta; and (c) the instant disposition based on the premise that the livestock excreta was stored is unlawful. Moreover, the Plaintiff did not have any further covered the manure made by a waterproof plastic bag with the discharge of livestock excreta. Moreover, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff stored the manure differently from the reported livestock excreta at the time of the Plaintiff’s report on recycling of livestock excreta, but this is not allowed due to an additional change in the disposal grounds. (b) The Defendant arbitrarily established the requirement that “be stored in the building” without any legal basis without permission.