1. The Defendant’s discharge facilities of livestock excreta against the ground livestock pens E in the Chungcheongnam-gun of Chungcheongbuk-gun on October 11, 2017.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 19, 195, F reported to the Defendant on June 19, 1995 that he would raise pigs in a stable with a size of 553.95 square meters above land E (hereinafter “the instant stable”).

B. Meanwhile, Article 3(1) and 3(2) [Attachment Table] of the Ordinance on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta in force from March 24, 2017 (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) provides that “[Attachment Table] shall restrict the raising of chickens, ducks, etc. in an area within 700 meters from the residential smuggling area (including the area with at least three housing units) to the boundary of livestock shed sites; and “[Attachment Table] Article 2 of the Addenda provides that “[Attachment Table] shall apply to those who raise livestock within the area where livestock raising is restricted prior to the enforcement of this Ordinance”.

C. At the time of March 24, 2017, the enforcement date of the instant Ordinance, the livestock pens was not operated for at least eight years, and the Plaintiffs were residents living within approximately 100 to 200 meters from the boundary date of the instant livestock shed.

D On October 10, 2017, the Defendant changed the representative of the livestock shed of this case from F to D, and changed the livestock species from pigs to D, with the alteration of livestock excreta discharge facilities.

E. On October 11, 2017, the Defendant accepted the instant report on the premise that Article 2 of the Addenda to the instant Ordinance is applied to the livestock shed (hereinafter “instant report on the change”) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. For the following reasons, the plaintiffs alleged that the disposition of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension and application of laws and regulations, and in violation of the principle of proportionality.

1. Article 2 of the Addenda to the Ordinance of this case is actually raising livestock by obtaining permission or filing a report prior to the enforcement of the Ordinance.