1. On September 27, 2016, the Defendant’s refusal to grant a building permit to the Plaintiffs is confirmed to be invalid.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs were the siblings, and Plaintiff A filed an application for each building permit on August 2, 2016 (hereinafter “instant application”) with a view to constructing pigs on the land of 4930.2m2m2, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, the mother C-owned, and Plaintiff B filed an application for each building permit on August 2, 2016 (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. According to the former Ordinance on Restriction of Livestock Raising at the time of the instant application, the instant application was not included in the area subject to restriction on livestock raising. However, upon the amendment to the OrdinanceF of the Ministry of Home Affairs on September 7, 2016, the said Ordinance changed the “area prior to the HriI to prevent water pollution caused by the gas flow and to eliminate the pollution source” to the entire area subject to restriction on livestock raising.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant Ordinance”) C.

On August 3, 2016, the Defendant requested related departments to consult, and on August 22, 2016, the Defendant respondeded to the opinion of withholding permission in accordance with Article 8 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”) and Article 3 of the Ordinance on Restriction on Livestock Raising of Buan-gun.

On August 24, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to withhold the deliberation on the instant application on the grounds that the Gun Planning Committee (the 6th Gun Planning Committee) was under way to partially amend the Ordinance on Restriction of Livestock Raising, and that it is reasonable to withhold the permission, as it is before and after the completion of the Council of Ordinance and Rule after pre-announcement of legislation.

E. On September 27, 2016, pursuant to Article 8 of the Livestock Excreta Act and Article 3 of the Ordinance on Restriction on Livestock Breeding of the Booan-gun, the Defendant rendered a disposition denying the Plaintiffs’ instant application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s permission for and acceptance of reports on the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities is not feasible, and that the matters subject to deliberation by the Committee on Urban Planning in accordance with the consultation with the relevant department (non-permission for the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities) are not standing.

[Reasons for Recognition] A. A. 2, 3, 12, 16, 17.