1. The Defendant’s provisional disposition of denial of construction made to the Plaintiff on May 2, 2018 is revoked.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On April 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit to establish animal and plant-related facilities (a stable) with the total floor area of 2,00 square meters on the ground of the 4,106 square meters in Seoyang-si Bridge (hereinafter “the instant application site”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On May 2, 2018, the Defendant rendered a provisional disposition on the following grounds in accordance with Article 58(1)4 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 15727, Aug. 14, 2018; hereinafter “former National Land Planning Act”) and Article 20 of the Urban Planning Ordinance at the time of smuggling.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case")

(a) The actual status of utilization of land in peripheral areas and their surroundings and drawings under Article 58 (1) 4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act;

B. According to Article 20 of the Urban Planning Ordinance, there is a risk of undermining public interest by deteriorating the farming environment of a large number of low-income farm households due to malodor and harmful insects in the relevant area and its surrounding areas due to additional location of livestock pens pursuant to Article 20.

C. The result of deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee 4th time in 2018, adjacent to C is likely to cause water pollution, and the surrounding areas are likely to cause malodor, etc. to be damaged to nearby farmers at the time of the construction of an additional livestock shed by means of excellent farmland and a collective greenhouse cultivation complex (a ground for recognition) and there is no dispute over the disposal of malodor, etc. (a ground for recognition), Gap 1-3, Eul 1, and

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate;

A. In light of the following circumstances, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

1) In addition, there have already been multiple agreements in the vicinity of the instant application site, and the Defendant issued a stable building permit in the vicinity of the instant application site before and after the instant disposition. There is no difference in circumstances between the stable that the Defendant issued a building permit and the instant application, and there is no change in circumstances, the instant disposition goes against the principle of equity, the principle of proportionality, the principle of protection of trust (the principle of prohibition of net conduct), the principle of self-defense of administration. 2)