1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit stating that he/she will build an animal and plant-related facility of 2,301 square meters in total area (one story in the ground) composed of one building (one story in the ground) on the ground of 3,857.1 square meters (hereinafter “the instant application site”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On May 29, 2017, the Defendant issued a non-permission on the ground that the instant application constitutes an area where livestock raising is restricted pursuant to the former Ordinance on the Management and Disposal of Livestock Excreta in the Asia-si (amended by Ordinance No. 1692, Sept. 25, 2017; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The filing of the instant application is located within a zone where livestock raising is restricted as prescribed by the Ordinance of this case, in the range of about 500 to 700 meters from the residential densely-populated area.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission on June 22, 2017. However, the dismissal ruling was rendered on August 7, 2017, and the written decision was served on the Plaintiff on August 24, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6-1, 6-2, 15, Eul 2, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. At the same time, the Defendant, who did not process the instant application, expanded the livestock breeding restriction area, issued the instant disposition at the same time. This is illegal and unfair since the Defendant intentionally delayed the treatment of the instant application.

B. Although the Plaintiff previously heard the answer that it is possible to ask the public official belonging to the Defendant to ask questions about the permit for the construction of a post office, the Defendant’s rejection of the instant application violates the principle of trust protection.

C. The instant Ordinance is null and void beyond the bounds delegated by the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, which is a superior statute (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”). Thus, it is null and void.