1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition to Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the entry of the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance.

① The second six pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall read “ September 19, 2016.” as “ September 20, 2016.” and the second eight pages “ September 12, 2016.” as “ September 19, 2016.”

(2) On the third fourth written judgment of the first instance court, "Evidence 1 and 2 of the first written judgment" shall be added to "Evidence 3 of the second written judgment of the first instance."

(3) The Act on National Land Planning and Utilization (hereinafter referred to as the "National Land Planning Act") shall be amended into "the Act on National Land Planning and Utilization (hereinafter referred to as the "National Land Planning Act") at the last place of the judgment of the first instance."

(4) The Act on Planning and Utilization of National Land shall be amended into “National Land Planning and Utilization Act” into “National Land Planning Act” in the fifth eightth sentence of the first instance court.

(5) The court of first instance shall delete from six to nine parallels of the court of first instance.

Based on the Ordinance on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta amended after each of the dispositions of this case, the Plaintiffs asserted that the designation of an area subject to restriction on livestock raising and the notification of topographic drawings in the Yan-si publicly notified by the Boan City Mayor as of April 28, 2017 should be applied retroactively to each of the dispositions of this case.

The defendant asserts that the amended ordinances and notifications were not the grounds for each of the dispositions in this case, but merely the defendant's rejection of the application for building permit even if the defendant re-dispositions against the plaintiffs in light of the above amendments.

Therefore, the amended ordinances and notifications are clear that they were not considered in each of the dispositions of this case, and they are not appropriate to determine whether they are abused or abused discretion of each of the dispositions of this case.

However, even if this part of the grounds for appeal is excluded, there are various circumstances presented in the first instance judgment.