1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a construction report (hereinafter “the first application”) to the Defendant to build a new temporary building with a building area of 232 square meters on the ground of B (hereinafter “instant land”) located in Yong-Gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”), and withdrawn the first application on September 22, 2014. B. On December 4, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a construction report on the construction of a temporary building (hereinafter “the second application”) to the Defendant to build a new temporary building (hereinafter “the instant temporary building”) with an animal and plant-related facility of a size of 90 square meters in the building area on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant temporary building”). The Defendant filed a second application with the Plaintiff on December 31, 2014, subject to consultation with the relevant department, subject to the instant disposition of non-permission of the instant temporary building (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Grounds for non-permission: The former Ordinance on the Restriction on Livestock Raising by the Unclaimed-gun (amended by Ordinance No. 2157, Jan. 5, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance") - The visit (open raising facilities) is located within 500 meters from the straight line near the boundary of the livestock raising facility site, and - The area within 500 meters from the boundary of the public-use facilities and residential densely-populated area (at least 10 units) to the straight line near the boundary of the livestock raising facility site is located within 500 meters from the boundary of the entire restricted area for livestock raising, and the ground for non-permission is related within 50 meters from the entire restricted area for livestock raising: Article 3 of the Ordinance of this case.

C. After receiving the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the instant disposition under this Court 2015Guhap10216, and this Court held that Article 3(1) [Attached Table 1] of the instant Ordinance, which served as the basis for the instant disposition, is the Gu prior to the amendment by Act No. 12516, Mar. 24, 2014, which is the basis for the instant disposition.