1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On December 6, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission for development activities and permission for installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities deemed a building permit to newly construct a wre (one story, a total floor area of 1,449 square meters; hereinafter “the instant livestock shed”), which is a facility related to the same and plant, on a wre-si B 2,964 square meters (hereinafter “the instant application site”).

[Grounds for Dismissal]

(a) Article 58 (1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as the “National Land Planning Act”) concerning the actual conditions of the utilization of land in neighboring areas and the creation of parts into the environment;

(b) The occurrence of malodor and pests is likely to occur in accordance with the provisions of Article 20 of the Urban Planning Ordinance, and the pollution and aggravation of the farming environment in the surrounding areas is likely to undermine public interest.

The decision of the Urban Planning Committee to reject the location improper as a result of deliberation

B. On December 31, 2019, after deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee, the Defendant rendered a provisional disposition to deny construction to the Plaintiff on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On February 4, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the appeal was dismissed on March 26, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1, 2, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate;

A. Plaintiff 1) The instant disposition of this case’s procedural defect stated only abstract grounds for the instant disposition. The Defendant did not present specific and objective grounds for the instant disposition. 2) Considering the following circumstances as a deviation from and abuse of discretionary power, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion due to misconception of facts and violation of the principle of proportionality.

Since the application of this case is far away from neighboring villages at least 500 meters, and broad farmland has been formed between them, there is little possibility that damage caused by malodor, etc. is likely to occur.

From May 6, 2010 to June 18, 2019, the Defendant has several times with respect to the construction of a stable near the instant application site.