1. The Defendant’s livestock excreta discharge facilities against the Plaintiff on February 13, 2017, from the Jinjin-gun on November 10, 2017.

1. Details of the disposition and ruling;

A. On February 15, 201, the Plaintiff obtained permission for the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities from the head of Gangnam-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant livestock shed”), and applied for permission for the alteration of livestock excreta discharge facilities from the original livestock shed to pigs on December 27, 2016.

On February 13, 2017, the Gangwon-do governor issued a disposition to accept the permission for change of the livestock excreta discharge facility (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. C was a resident of Gangnam-gun, the neighboring livestock shed of the instant case, and filed an administrative appeal with the Defendant on July 28, 2017, when he/she was dissatisfied with the instant disposition.

C. On November 10, 2017, the Defendant interpreted Article 3 of the former Ordinance on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2350, Oct. 18, 2017; hereinafter “former Ordinance on Jinjin-gun”) to the effect that Article 3 of the former Ordinance on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta shall apply even in cases where he/she changes the species of livestock from the original to the pigs. According to Article 3 of the above Ordinance, the site where the instant livestock shed is located falls under an absolute restricted area within 1,000 meters from E villages, which is a residential densely located, and the land where the instant livestock shed is located falls under an absolute restricted area and is likely to cause environmental harm (hereinafter “the instant ruling”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the ruling of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The transitional provisions under Article 3(1) of the Addenda to the former Ordinance on Jinjin-gun may raise livestock regardless of whether the Plaintiff previously operated livestock penss fall under the restricted area for raising livestock, and the proviso of Article 3(1) of the Addenda to the said Ordinance should be construed as not applying to cases where the Plaintiff’s alteration of livestock in the ducks to pigs is made. 2) Even if the original head of the livestock shed changes the category of livestock to pigs.