beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On or around April 17, 2014, the Plaintiffs registered the livestock breeding business to the Defendant (hereinafter “D”) (the Plaintiff newly registered the livestock breeding business on April 17, 2014, and Plaintiff B acquired the said business on September 1, 2015, and on August 20, 2018, the name of the said business was changed to the Plaintiff’s joint name, but the Plaintiffs actually appeared to have jointly raised livestock from the beginning, and on August 20, 2018, the Plaintiff appears to have actually changed to have operated the said livestock breeding business on or around August 20, 2018) 1st floor (hereinafter “D-gun”) above 1,460 square meters (hereinafter “D”) above ground floor (hereinafter “the total area of 252.68 square meters) and 274.8 square meters below the total floor area of 1 underground floor (hereinafter “existing livestock shed”).
B. The Plaintiffs planned to transfer the location of livestock pens to the ground of 2,356 square meters (hereinafter “F land”), which is part of 23,405 square meters of land adjacent thereto, and 169 square meters of land prior to G (hereinafter “G land”), and to newly construct two warehouses and stables (a total of 377.79 square meters of building area and total floor area (a 104 square meters of Dong-dong, 104 square meters of storage, 273.79 square meters, and hereinafter “the instant livestock shed”) and to the Defendant on August 17, 2018.
C. On August 23, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to refuse to accept the said building report on the ground that “the pertinent application area constitutes a restricted area for raising livestock under Article 8 of the Livestock Excreta Management and Use Act (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”), and thus, it is impossible to legally treat the permission for installation of discharge facilities. Therefore, it is impossible to construct animal and plant-related facilities (a livestock shed).”
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). [The grounds for recognition] are non-satisfy, described in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and video, and oral arguments.