1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition to return waste recycling declarations to the Plaintiff on March 25, 2011.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff cultivated pine trees in the area of 1,224 square meters prior to B, C, 40 square meters prior to C, and D, 1,736 square meters prior to D (hereinafter “instant farm”).

B. On February 2, 2007, the Plaintiff established one vinyl (a 100 square meters wide; hereinafter “the instant vinyl”) for the purpose of the original breeding facility within the instant farm, and thereafter laid down the original 50-60 mar (the present 170 mar) in the instant farm from around that time, and laid down the original mar of 50-60 mar (the present marth mar) in the instant farm in a manner that the original marbs down the original mar that he was the person in the instant farm, and cultivated the mar trees in such a manner that the original marbs of the original marries can be substituted by a dry field.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff reported waste recycling to the Defendant on October 8, 2010 that “after transporting and crushing food waste (refluences) and then recycling the food waste as feed of 800 mariths, which is stored in the farm of this case, the Plaintiff would bring food waste to a cafeteria near the cafeteria where the original feed is insufficient, and would use it as feed of 800 maris, which is stored in the farm of this case.”

On October 19, 2010, the Defendant filed a report on waste-generating and disposal facilities in accordance with the former Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (amended by Act No. 10893, Jul. 21, 201; hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”) with the Plaintiff on October 19, 201, where the size of livestock waste-generating facilities due to the raising of ducks is not less than 150 square meters (hereinafter “instant ground for disposition”). The instant farm constitutes an area where livestock breeding is restricted pursuant to Article 3 of the former Ordinance on the Restriction on the Restriction of the Raising of Mo-gun Livestock (amended by Ordinance No. 1862, Nov. 9, 2009; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).

E. On March 16, 201, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendant.