1. On August 16, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-permission to file an application for permission to change a livestock excreta discharge facility with the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to alter livestock excreta discharge facilities (hereinafter “instant application”) with a view to changing the size of livestock excreta discharge facilities installed and operated in 558 square meters from 558 square meters to 8,594.04 square meters to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. On August 16, 2017, the Defendant rejected the application for permission of alteration of livestock excreta discharge facilities in a zone in which livestock breeding is restricted (within 1,000 meters from the boundary line of the site of livestock breeding facilities) pursuant to Article 8 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “livestock Excreta Act”) and Article 3(3) of the Ordinance on the Restriction on Livestock Raising of Jinan-gun (hereinafter “Ordinance of this case”). Accordingly, the Defendant rejected the application for permission of alteration of livestock excreta discharge facilities.

'The motion was rejected on the grounds of non-permission.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(C) The Plaintiff’s objection and filed an administrative appeal on September 20, 2017 on the same date, and the Jeollabuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 30, 2017. [The Plaintiff’s grounds for recognition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on the ground of lack of dispute; (b) Party A’s evidence Nos. 3 and 4; and (c) Party A’s evidence Nos.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful due to the following defects.

1) The head of a Gun designates a certain area as prescribed by municipal ordinance and the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use (hereinafter “Land Use Regulation Act”) to restrict livestock raising under Article 8 of the non-existence of disposal grounds.

(2) As prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the designation of a livestock breeding restriction zone was not effective since a topographical map was not prepared and was not publicly announced in the Official Gazette. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s application may not be rejected on the ground that the designation of a topographical map was not effective.