1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

A. According to Article 58(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, “development activities shall be conducted in harmony with surrounding environments or landscape, such as the actual use condition of neighboring areas or land utilization plan, height of buildings, gradient of land, status of trees, water drainage, drainage of water in river, lake, marsh, wetlands, etc.,” and the contents of deliberation by the Urban Planning and Utilization Act and the criteria for permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, etc., when comprehensively considering the following: (a) the occurrence of large-scale environmental pollution (damage is impossible and damage is attributable to local residents); (b) the occurrence of a large-scale environmental pollution (the damage is attributable to local residents); and (c) the heavy opposition to local residents; and (d) the possibility of de-permission of development activities as a project contrary to the standards for permission for development activities; (c) the amendment of the Ordinance on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta Act (the amendment of Ordinance No. 2081, Jun. 1, 2008) only for the Plaintiff’s request for development activities in this case.

b. 2) Moreover, the relevant lot number is prohibited from raising livestock as it constitutes an area subject to livestock breeding restriction pursuant to the amended Ordinance. D. The Defendant added the grounds that “each site for livestock pens is designated as an area subject to livestock breeding restriction pursuant to Article 5 of the instant Ordinance amended by Ordinance No. 2048, Sept. 5, 2018, as the site for each livestock shed was designated as an area subject to livestock breeding restriction” to the following grounds during the instant litigation proceedings. The Defendant added the grounds that “No money is newly built” to the grounds that there is no dispute as to the ground for recognition, and the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 1, 2, and 5 (including the number where there is a serial number), and the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 1, 2, and 5 (including the number where there is a spot number).