1. The Defendant’s disposition of denying the Plaintiff’s raising of livestock on January 26, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit for the construction of the same plant and plant-related facilities (hereinafter “the instant livestock shed”) from the Defendant to B (hereinafter “the instant livestock shed”). From April 20, 206, the Plaintiff began to set up the instant livestock shed and obtained approval for the use on November 14, 2007, and completed the registration of ownership preservation for the instant livestock shed on February 12, 2008.

(A) Evidence 2. (b)

(1) On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for livestock breeding business on December 23, 2016 (hereinafter “instant application”).

(2) On January 26, 2017, the Defendant rejected the instant application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and the grounds for the disposition set out in the written disposition are as follows.

(A) No. 1) Notice of non-permission to engage in livestock breeding business;

2. Examination of the case of applying for permission of livestock breeding business as a civil petition with a thickness, conflicts with the permission and registration standards for livestock farming business under Article 22 of the Livestock Industry Act and Articles 14-2 and 14-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

3. Article 2 (Transitional Measures against Existing Facilities) of the Addenda to the Ordinance on Restriction on Livestock Raising in Naju (amended by Ordinance No. 1250, Sept. 27, 2016; amended by Ordinance No. 1306, Mar. 22, 2017; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) is inappropriate, and thus, the permission for livestock breeding business is not feasible.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to whether the instant disposition is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant merely puts only the ground provisions while rendering the instant disposition, but did not specify the grounds and reasons for the disposition. 2) The Plaintiff already constructed the instant stable before the instant Ordinance was enforced.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Addenda to the instant Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1250, Sept. 27, 2016), the Plaintiff is the instant case.