1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 2011, the Plaintiff has constructed and operated one stable with a total floor area of 1,950.75 square meters on the land in the Donju-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, and C, and one compost with a total floor area of 166.5 square meters.

B. On November 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a permit to convert farmland in the form of complex civil petitions, and an application for a permit to construct (extension) including an application for permission for development activities (hereinafter “instant application”) with a view to extending the animal and plant-related facilities of the building area of 1,144 square meters, the total floor area of 1,144 square meters on the ground of 1,144 square meters, the total area of 8.41 square meters, and the total floor area of 8.41 square meters (hereinafter “the instant livestock shed”).

C. On December 27, 2018, the Defendant rendered a non-permission of construction permission (non-permission of development permission) on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff.

The reason for non-existence: A review by the Gun Planning Committee was not implemented with the commitment with local residents to not extend additional construction at the time of the initial permission for new construction of a stable, and since the expansion of a stable is likely to cause environmental pollution, such as malodor generation, damage from pests, etc., in neighboring E districts (F districts) and village districts, and to infringe on the living zone and property rights of neighboring residents, the location [based on inappropriate recognition] is without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s instant application form the former Ordinance on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (amended by Ordinance No. 2670, Jan. 3, 2019; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s addition to the grounds for disposal that constitute “area within 30 meters from a river” as prescribed in Article 3(3) [Attachment 1] does not constitute “area within 30 meters from a river” is not permissible as it is not recognized as identical to the grounds for disposition of this case and the factual basis thereof.