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 November 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for a construction permit with the Defendant to newly construct a stable with a building area of 2,817.9 square meters on the B 3,025 square meters and C 1,975 square meters (hereinafter “the house site”).

B. Accordingly, on April 2, 2018, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a non-construction permit notification for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B Japan filed an application for permission for development activities for the purpose of building a site for animal and plant-related facilities (a stable) with a thickness, if a stable is newly constructed because it is located in a large-scale arable area, damage such as sunshine, water flow, ventilation, etc. may be caused to surrounding farmland. Also, considering the current state, location, surrounding circumstances, etc., the applicant has a conservation value as farmland as a good farmland arranged by a large-scale arable land, and there is a risk of causing water pollution, soil contamination, environmental pollution, ecosystem destruction, etc. due to livestock wastewater, etc. to D, which is worthy of conservation as a natural resource located near the surrounding area due to development activities.

In addition, since there is no livestock shed in the vicinity, there is a concern that the erosion of farmland and the corrosion of the surrounding landscape are likely to occur, it is necessary to perform the functions of the farmland as excellent farmland and to protect the farming conditions of the surrounding farmland rather than being developed as a livestock shed, and it is determined that it is necessary to perform the functions of the farmland as excellent farmland and to protect the farming conditions of the surrounding farmland.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 (including virtual number), Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case abused discretion, such as misunderstanding of facts.

3. Attached Form of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. Determination

(a) The possibility of environmental pollution, etc. is that the administrative authority should make a determination on the public interest, and its wide discretion is recognized.

It is abuse of discretionary power in relation thereto.