1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons for this part of the disposition are as follows: “145,840,00 won” as “145,845,000 won”; “90,017,000 won” as “90,017,700 won” as “90,017,700 won” as “145,845,00 in Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and “the instant disposition” as “the selection of a person subject to the project for the modernization of livestock shed facilities (hereinafter “the instant subsidized project”)” as “the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of first instance”; thus, this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of first instance, and this part is cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The part (a) pointing out that the Defendant’s non-existence of the grounds for disposition among the livestock pens of this case violated Article 11(1) of the Building Act (the removal of the part after 414m2 and the subsequent 384m2; hereinafter “instant part”) as an extension without permission among the livestock pens of this case was established in a non-forest facility installed to keep feed and rice rice straw at the time of construction of the Plaintiff around 2009 at the time of the construction of the livestock shed of this case, a panel was established in the part of the permitted area (1,341m2) on the estimate attached at the time of the submission of the application of this case. The above non-forest facilities are not included in the building area under Article 119(1)2(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21590, Jun. 30, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply) but does not constitute a violation of Article 111(1)2(1) of the Building Act within the boundary of the boundary of the site.