1. On June 30, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition to return a building report to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a construction report with the Defendant on April 12, 2016 in order to newly build a site area of 7,490 square meters, building area of 4,314.6 square meters, and a general steel structure facility and plant-related facility (a stable) of a 12-dong size on the ground (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Around May 2016 and around June 2016, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to submit a written consent within 500 meters from the Plaintiff in accordance with the guidelines for the restriction on animal raising facilities, etc., but the Plaintiff failed to submit a written consent to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff attempted to submit a written consent from the Defendant on September 10, 2015, but the Defendant’s public official sought a new consent by requesting the submission of the latest written consent, but was unable to submit the written consent.

C. On June 30, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the written application for a building report submitted by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff shall be returned in accordance with Article 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, on the ground that the written application for a building report submitted by the Plaintiff was submitted twice due to lack of documents, but the submitted supplementary documents were not submitted until now, and that the submission of supplementary documents is impossible due to the impossibility of submitting within the deadline.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on September 13, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2-1 to 4, 3, 4, Eul evidence 5 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. There is no statute that requires the submission of a written consent of the relevant local residents at the time of the construction report for the construction of the Plaintiff’s assertion livestock shed. Therefore, the Defendant’s return of the Plaintiff’s construction report on the ground that the written consent was not submitted.