1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The "1,187.4 square meters" in the 5th sentence of the first instance court shall be deemed as "98.4 square meters".

The following judgments will be added to the 7th sentence of the first instance court. "......"

Article 8 (1) 1 of the Livestock Excreta Ordinance provides that the scope of "area where 20 or more households are densely concentrated," which is stipulated in relation to "area subject to restriction on raising of livestock partially," shall be determined by the ordinance of the relevant local government. ② Article 3 and [Attachment Table] of the Ordinance of this case provides that "area subject to restriction on raising of livestock shall be within 200 meters, the distance between the relevant house and its next house, and the next house shall be within 200 meters, the distance between the next house and its next house, and the next house shall also be within 20 or more households, the above [Attachment Table] shall be deemed invalid because it exceeds the bounds delegated by Article 8 of the Livestock Excreta Act, or is in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition." However, Article 8 (1) 1 of the Livestock Excreta Ordinance provides that "the scope of "area subject to restriction on raising of livestock is required to protect the living environment as a residential densely area," and Article 3 [Attachment Table] of the Ordinance of this case shall be limited to the area subject to restriction on raising of livestock within 20 or more than 7 percent of the previous livestock.