1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-permission to construct a building on October 11, 2017 is revoked.

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

Details of the disposition

On September 5, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a construction permit to newly build three animal and plant-related facilities [milch cattle] in the total floor area of 3,152.2 cubic meters on the ground of land outside B and one parcel (hereinafter referred to as “instant application site”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). On October 11, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-permission of construction permission on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The instant application is an area in which livestock raising is restricted within a distance of 5 or more houses prescribed in Article 3 of the Ordinance on the Management and Disposal of Livestock Excreta in ASEAN (1,000 square meters, which is within a distance of 1,00 square meters, from the 10 or more houses prescribed in Article 3 of the Ordinance on the Restriction of Livestock Raising in Yan City, and is an area in which the residents need to be protected within a boundary area within 300 meters from the 10 or more houses prescribed in Article 3 of the Ordinance on the Restriction of Livestock Raising in Yanan City, and thus, the Plaintiff’s objection to the instant application was dismissed on January 17, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The Defendant’s principal safety defense, based on the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 7, 8 (including the number of branch numbers), Eul’s evidence Nos. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, was determined as to the defense of safety, the Plaintiff applied for a building permit by changing the type of livestock after the instant disposition was issued, and obtained a building permit from the Defendant. Thus, it is difficult to view that there is a legal interest to seek the

Judgment

In this case, even if the Plaintiff obtained a building permit by changing the type of livestock into a Chinese rain according to the Defendant’s assertion, it cannot be deemed that the content of the building permit intended through the instant application is the same, and the Plaintiff’s genuine intent appears to have obtained a building permit for milching. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the revocation of the instant disposition is lawful.