1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 20, 2008, the Plaintiff, a farming association corporation established for the purpose of operating the agriculture, fisheries, or the livestock industry, installed a facility for raising livestock, and registered the livestock industry with permission for installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities in the Gun, Gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant livestock shed”).

On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff registered the closure of business, but registered the breeding business again to raise ducks at the same place on February 20, 2017, and on October 14, 2017, the Plaintiff changed the cat of the cat of the cat of the cat of the cat of the cat of the cat of c

The quantity of livestock excreta generated from the treatment facilities of discharge facilities (in cubic meters/day) in the area of livestock excreta generated from the treatment facilities of discharge facilities (in the area of D, B, E original 81.90 41,125.15 1 changed after change of D, B, E, and F pigs 50,974.35 197,04436

B. Around October 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to alter livestock excreta discharge facilities as follows.

C. On November 3, 2017, the Defendant rendered a non-permission disposition on the said application for permission for change (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “If the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities and disposal facilities site in the flood area is considerably lower than that of nearby farmland and surrounding roads at the time of low cost of the scheduled site according to the installation plan, it is likely to discharge livestock excreta due to flooding, and that the Plaintiff did not comply with the report on change of livestock excreta discharge facilities in the hatche site, which is an animal and plant-related facility extended on January 19, 2017.”

On May 31, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Jeonnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission, and the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s above claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 11 and 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Rivers, the possibility of actual occurrence of flood damage to the livestock pens of the Plaintiff’s assertion, or the pollutant emission facilities installed by the Plaintiff, are discharged.