1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 5, 2016, F filed a report on the construction of livestock excreta and the report on the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities with a size of 3,448 square meters, building area of 978 square meters, animal and plant-related facilities of the total floor area of 978 square meters on the ground of 5,046 square meters in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and on August 31, 2016, F issued a disposition to accept the report on the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities on August 12, 2016, and the Defendant issued a disposition to F to accept the report on the construction of livestock excreta discharge facilities on August 31, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

The Plaintiffs are those who reside within 200 meters from the boundary of the instant livestock shed site, and among them, the sole housing and the sole housing located in the Ha located in the Hah-gun, the Plaintiff’s resident, constitutes a restricted area for raising livestock under the former Ordinance on the Areas Restricted for raising Livestock of the Hah-gun (amended by Ordinance No. 2377, Jul. 5, 2017; hereinafter “former Ordinance on the Hah-gun”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Pursuant to the delegation of the main sentence of Article 8(1) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta alleged by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”), the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry designated an area subject to restriction on livestock raising by the Ordinance of the former voice group in the voice group. The Plaintiff’s place of residence in the instant case without considering the aforementioned Ordinance, even though the instant disposition constituted an area subject to restriction on livestock raising under the said Ordinance, violates the main sentence of Article 8(1) of the Livestock Excreta Act and infringes on the right of local autonomy of the voice group. The proviso of Article 8(1) of the Livestock Excreta Act stipulates that a designation of an area subject to restriction on livestock raising shall be designated after consultation with the relevant local government, at the request of a neighboring local government