1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) As to the grounds for disposition No. 1, the instant application is located within 1,000 meters from a dormitory for Asan-si, E, F Village, and Budget-gun D (hereinafter “D of this case”) within 3,000 meters, which is a residential densely-populated area where at least 5 houses prescribed in the attached Table of Article 3 of the former Ordinance on the Areas subject to Restriction on Livestock Raising (amended by Ordinance No. 2356, Apr. 7, 2017; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).

B) In granting permission for the instant application as to the ground for disposition No. 2, there are concerns over infringement of the agricultural environment or residential environment due to the erosion of good farmland, malodor, and water pollution, and there are public interest grounds for which the application cannot be granted. (2) The Plaintiff’s assertion (a) The Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use (hereinafter “Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use”).

According to Articles 5 and 8, the head of a local government is the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “Act on Livestock Excreta”).

In the case of designating a zone where livestock raising is restricted under Article 8, a topographical map was prepared and published in the official bulletin of the local government, but the defendant omitted the publication of a topographical map on April 15, 2016 as to the zone where livestock raising is restricted under the Ordinance of this case, and the designation of such zone does not take effect, and the designation of such zone is recognized, and even if the designation of the zone where livestock raising is restricted under the Ordinance of this case, the instant dormitory does not fall under a residential densely-populated area as defined in Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Ordinance of this case, and is also subject to the above D dormitory building.