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 April 27, 1994, the Plaintiff is a corporation operating swine breeding facilities (hereinafter “the instant swine breeding facilities”) in Haju-si with permission for the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities under Article 11 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “livestock Excreta Act”).

B. On January 4, 2017, the Defendant received a civil petition from the neighboring residents to the effect that “the malodor produced in the instant money shed, etc. is likely to open and call a scarcity,” and collected malodor samples from the boundary line of the instant land near the instant money shed on the same day.

C. On January 5, 2017, the Defendant requested the Health and Environment Research Institute of Chungcheongbuk-do (hereinafter referred to as the “Health and Environment Research Institute”) to test malodor samples taken as above. The Health and Environment Research Institute, as a result of the inspection of the pollution degree of the said malodor samples, judged that the occurrence of multiple malodor 20 times exceeding the permissible emission levels (not more than 15 times the dilution 15 times the permissible emission levels) on the boundary of the site under Article 8 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the Malodor Prevention Act was inappropriate, and notified the Defendant of the said inspection results on January 9, 2017.

On January 31, 2017, the Defendant issued an order for improvement (hereinafter referred to as the “order for improvement”) under Article 17(4) of the Livestock Excreta Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 17(3) of the Livestock Excreta Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act with respect to the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 17(4) of the same Act, the Defendant issued an order for improvement (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 17(3) of the Livestock Excreta Act, and Article 15 [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.