1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an application for construction permit in the form of complex civil petitions containing permission for development activities, permission for conversion of mountainous district, report on installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities, etc. (hereinafter “instant application”) with a view to newly constructing eight Dong-dong facilities related to the same and plant of a total floor area of 12,191.84 square meters on the ground (hereinafter “instant application site”).

B. On December 30, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(1) The occurrence of damage to residents due to the occurrence of dust noise and damage to farming caused by the construction of a large-scale railroad building and the occurrence of damage to surrounding environment (a malodor, pest, disease, and water quality deterioration of a reservoir) and crops.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 27, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s assertion that it has a low impact on the lives of residents and the surrounding environment due to a windowless building; the surrounding areas of the instant application area are forests, fields, paddys, fields, etc.; there are no surrounding people; the impact of malodor due to small-scale environmental impact assessment results shows insignificant; excreta is deemed not to be livestock wastewater discharged into neighboring rivers by outsourcing the disposal of the entire quantity of foul waste to the outside; and the damage to neighboring residents is caused by the valley of this case.

In other words, there is no specific proof that the farm road is likely to be damaged, and the opposing civil petition by the residents cannot be a legitimate standard to determine whether to grant a building permit, and it can be caused by the guidance of this case.