1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for building permit (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant to newly build two Dong and plant-related facilities with a total floor space of 4,250 square meters on the ground outside Asan-si and three lots (hereinafter “instant application site”).

On May 29, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-permission on the ground that the instant application against the Plaintiff constitutes a restricted area for raising livestock pursuant to the former Ordinance on the Management and Disposal of Livestock Excreta in Busan City (amended by Ordinance No. 1692, Sept. 25, 2017; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).

(2) The Plaintiff filed the instant application in order to newly build livestock pens in the instant application area that does not fall under the restricted area for raising livestock under the former Ordinance on the Management and Disposal of Livestock Excreta in Busan City (amended by Ordinance No. 1645, May 25, 2017; hereinafter “former Ordinance prior to the amendment”), by stating that the disposition of the instant case is lawful, under the former Ordinance on the Management and Disposal of Livestock Excreta in Busan City (amended by Ordinance No. 1645, May 25, 2017; hereinafter “former Ordinance”).

However, while the Defendant unfairly delays the treatment of the instant application in violation of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter “Civil Petitions Treatment Act”), the Asan City Council passed a resolution on May 19, 2017 on the Ordinance stipulating that the restriction on the raising of milch cattle shall be “1,000 meters from the residential smuggling area.” The Defendant promulgated the same on May 25, 2017, and issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant application area constitutes the restricted area for raising livestock under the instant Ordinance.

As such, the defendant's disposition of this case is unfair in violation of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act.