1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Paragraph (2) is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where additional decision is made. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

From 2 up to 10 lines from 9 lines to 10 lines, “The instant disposition was rejected (hereinafter “instant disposition”)” was rejected as “the instant disposition was rejected (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The 5th line "Animal Protection Act" is deemed to be the former Animal Protection Act (amended by Act No. 16075, Dec. 24, 2018; hereinafter "Animal Protection Act").

6 The following shall be added to the six lines below:

Inasmuch as the legitimacy of the instant disposition is recognized as the ground for the instant disposition as the ground for the instant disposition No. 1, the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful, regardless of whether the ground for the instant disposition is legitimate. However, if the instant disposition was based solely on the ground for the ground for the instant disposition No. 3, additional determination is made as to whether or not the instant disposition was deviates from or abused from discretionary power.” 84 pages 84, “No. 13 and 14,” respectively.

8 Not less than 7 lines shall be drawn up to 4 lines below:

There are heavy metals, such as cadmium, which are generated in the course of cremation the dead bodies of ordinary animals, and heavy metals are likely to cause soil contamination and water pollution in the long term.

However, there is a location in C and farmland in the vicinity of the application site of this case, which is anticipated environmental damage if animal funeral facilities are installed. D) It is insufficient to recognize that the data related to cremation submitted by the Plaintiff (A evidence No. 14-1 and No. 2) alone does not generate any pollutants even if animal funeral facilities are installed in the application site of this case, and the defendant did not submit any evidence about specific pollutants disposal facilities.