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 September 18, 2012, the Plaintiff registered livestock breeding business and obtained permission for the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant permission”) and raises 2,800 pigs from a farm located in Gyeongcheon-gun A (hereinafter “instant farm”).

B. On August 15, 2014, the Plaintiff discharged livestock excreta in the storage of the instant farm, and on September 23, 2014, the Defendant issued a warning to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the livestock excreta discharged from a waste-generating facility was discharged without discharging it into a disposal facility,” pursuant to Articles 18(2) and (1) and 17(1)1 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “Act”), Article 17(1) [Attachment 5] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (amended by Ordinance of Ministry of Environment No. 599, Mar. 25, 2015; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”).

C. On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff discharged water generated from the water supply facilities of the instant farm as a mixture of swine excreta, and the Defendant, on December 9, 2014, issued a disposition revoking the instant permission in accordance with the instant disposition standards (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff discharged livestock excreta discharged from a waste-generating facility twice in the recent one year without discharging it to a disposal facility.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul's evidence 1 to 8 or video, purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On August 6, 2014, and November 15, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 B, as the Plaintiff, discharged livestock excreta to a disposal facility, but the Defendant, even though discharged livestock excreta without discharging it to a disposal facility, was recognized as due to minor negligence or error, given a mitigated disposition of business suspension for six months by reducing the disposition standard of this case against C.