1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport and purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this part, are as follows, except for the part concerning the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the abuse of deviations from and abuse of discretionary power (Articles 1 and 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance) among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is identical to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance,

(Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Re-use

A. The grounds for the instant disposition regarding Chapter 3 do not constitute “in the event that the Plaintiff filed a report by unlawful means, such as the Plaintiff’s use of forged written consent from the residents, thereby obtaining permission or filing a report by fraudulent or other unlawful means” under Article 18(1)1 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “Act on Livestock Excreta”) or “in the event that the Plaintiff received permission or filed a report by fraudulent or other unlawful means, it does not constitute “in the event that it falls

Therefore, the resident consent rate does not affect the illegality of the disposition of this case, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review.

B. The proviso to Article 18(1) of the Livestock Excreta Act provides that “in cases falling under subparagraph 1, the permission for the installation of discharge facilities shall be revoked or the closure thereof shall be ordered.”

In full view of the fact that it is necessary to ensure the strictness of administrative actions by cancelling permission or reporting in a manner that is highly likely to be subject to criticism in the event permission or reporting was obtained or filed by unlawful means, the instant disposition constitutes a binding act that does not allow the discretion of an administrative agency.

Even if the instant disposition is considered as discretionary act, in light of the following legal principles, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition was an abuse of discretion, in light of the facts acknowledged in the first instance trial and the purport of the entire pleadings: (i) there is a defect in the beneficial administrative disposition.