1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 10, 2006, the Plaintiff reported the installation of livestock excreta emission facilities to the Defendant with respect to facilities related to the same plant and plant (the livestock shed; hereinafter “the livestock shed of this case”) in Naju City, and obtained permission from the Defendant on March 2, 2006 for the construction of the livestock shed of this case.

The Plaintiff started to set up the instant livestock shed from April 20, 2006, and obtained approval for use on November 14, 2007, and completed registration of preservation of ownership of the instant livestock shed on February 12, 2008.

B. On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant to allow the Defendant to engage in livestock breeding business at the instant livestock shed, and the Defendant rejected the said application on January 26, 2017.

On April 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the above rejection disposition with the Gwangju District Court 2017Guhap11138, and the above court rendered a decision revoking the above rejection disposition on September 14, 2017 on the ground that the above rejection disposition was not properly presented for the reasons under Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, and the above decision became final and conclusive on October 11, 2017.

C. On January 5, 2018, the Defendant issued an order to close down the instant livestock shed pursuant to Article 18(1)2 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to raise livestock for at least three years without justifiable grounds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not give prior notice or an opportunity to present opinions to the Plaintiff while rendering the instant disposition. 2) The order to close the instant disposition does not constitute a disposition under Article 17 and [Attachment 7] of the Enforcement Rule of the Livestock Excreta Act, and there is no legal basis.

3. The initial date of “not less than three years” in Article 18 (1) 2 of the Livestock Excreta Act shall be the date on which livestock breeding business is licensed or livestock is commenced.