1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except where the court of first instance adopted the judgment as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 8(1) of the Livestock Excreta Act provides that “The designation of an area in which restriction on raising livestock is deemed necessary among the areas falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 8(1) and the restriction on raising livestock in such area shall be subject to the municipal ordinance of a local government.” Article 8(1) of the same Act provides that “The designation of an area where restriction on raising livestock is required to protect the living environment of local residents, an area in which water quality is necessary, such as a water-source protection area, and an area exceeding the environmental standards,” shall be subject to the designation of an area where raising livestock is restricted for the purpose of preserving the living environment of local residents or preserving the quality of water sources.” The detailed contents of the criteria for the designation of an area where raising livestock is restricted shall be determined by the municipal ordinance of the head of a Si/Gun/Gu as follows: (i) the designation of an area where raising livestock is restricted by the municipal ordinance of the local government, by recognizing the need to be regulated in accordance with professional and technical judgment and policy consideration in accordance with the actual conditions of each local government; (ii) the same abstract concept as the amendment of this case’s.