1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is that "the result of on-site inspection by the court of first instance" No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the result of on-site inspection by the court of first instance and that of the court of the first instance," and that the head of the 10th and 5th and 18th are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the head of the 11th and 5th and 18th are as follows. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

[Attachment] In light of the following circumstances which can be inferred from the above facts, the plaintiff presented countermeasures against malodor, shock prevention, water pollution, substitute roads, etc. in accordance with the defendant's request for supplement and the opinion on the review of small environmental impact assessment, and the plaintiff presented opinions about malodor, shock prevention, water pollution, substitute roads, etc., and the astronomical mayor stated that permission is reasonable because there are no conflict with individual laws and there are no concerns about environmental pollution, and the reason why the disposition of this case is issued is mainly due to concerns over the occurrence of civil petitions by neighboring residents. The disposition of this case goes against the principle of proportionality because it excessively infringes on the plaintiff's private interest compared to the public interest purpose that the defendant intends to achieve, and thus it is likely that the defendant discharges livestock excreta without permission and without permission is likely to discharge livestock excreta in the future.

In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the agency may add or change other reasons only to the extent that the original reason and basic factual relations are recognized to be identical, and the existence of such basic factual relations is based on the specific facts prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition.