1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The grounds for this part of the disposition are as stated in the pertinent part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2 to No. 35). Thus, this part of the grounds for appeal is cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, the second page 6 to 7 “(D, E, F, G, and H)” is changed to “(at that time, the lot number is D, E, F, G, and H at the time of E, E, G, and H)”, and the second page “after the seat of the C” in the 15th sentence (hereinafter referred to as “the location of the instant application”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The “Ordinance on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta in Bangladesh” (amended by Ordinance No. 1286, Jun. 10, 2019; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) which is the basis for the disposition invalidation of the instant disposition, which is the grounds for the disposition invalidation of the instant Ordinance, is the same.

Article 7(1) [Attachment 1] of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta”)

(2) A natural village district, which was not delegated by the Plaintiff, designated a zone within 2,00 meters from the boundary line as an area subject to restriction on raising of livestock, thereby making it almost impossible to establish money within the city in Ansan-si. Since the provisions of the above Ordinance and the subsequent announcement of the Masan-si were invalid in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition against the rights and interests of the people beyond the limit delegated by the Act, and thus, the instant disposition based thereon is unlawful. (ii) even if the instant Ordinance is deemed valid even if abuse of discretionary power, there is no concentrated area around the instant application site, and the Plaintiff plans to newly build environment-friendly livestock pens, such as installing the city in which the instant application site is well-populated and installing the latest livestock excreta purification facility, and if there is an environmental pollution, such as malodor, from the Plaintiff’s money death, the issue can be resolved by the improvement order, etc. in accordance with relevant statutes.

Nevertheless, the defendant's general citizens against the livestock raising facilities.