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 November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired livestock-raising facilities on the ground C located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant livestock shed”). The said livestock shed was a stable without obtaining permission for discharge facilities under the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, which was in force at the time.

B. On October 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a construction permit for the extension, etc. of the instant livestock pens, and filed an application with the Defendant for the installation of discharge facilities under Article 11 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”) with respect to the instant livestock pens, which are unauthorized discharge facilities, pursuant to Article 8 of the Addenda to the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (Act No. 12516, Mar. 24, 2014) (hereinafter “the Addenda to the instant case”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant application”). C.

On June 8, 2017, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for permission for construction and installation of emission facilities for the following reasons.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The relevant facility is installed in a zone in which livestock raising is restricted and intends to obtain permission for installation by applying the Addenda to the Livestock Excreta Act (No. 12516, Mar. 24, 2014), and is a discharge facility that has existed prior to the designation and public announcement of a zone in which livestock raising is restricted to obtain permission for installation.

b. However, this application does not exist in the milk room in the relevant facility as a result of the on-site verification of the livestock shed facilities and the inquiry of the residents in the surrounding areas, and it is confirmed that the facility was operated as the cattle breeding facility prior to that time. Therefore, it is not permissible to install the milching facility and the milk nursery do not have any emission facilities prior to that time. [The grounds for recognition: Each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(a)an application for the construction permit shall be filed for reasons other than those that are specified in the legislation;