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 February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for building permission, etc. deemed permission, etc. for development activities, in order to newly build Dong-gu and plant-related facilities (the main building 11 Dong-dong, 6 Dong-dong, 6 Dong-dong, 6 Dong-dong, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, the planning management area, and 19,977 square meters on the ground of 56,821 square meters in total of the site area, 19,549.62 square meters in total of the building area, 20,701 square meters in total, and 20,701 square meters in total, on the ground of 53 square meters in Song-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, the planning management area (hereinafter “instant application site”).

B. On February 16, 2017, along with a review opinion (Evidence A 10) stating that the above application for building permit satisfies the criteria for permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Management Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), the Defendant consulted with the Monosan Urban and Gun Planning Committee on February 16, 2017, but rejected it for the following reasons, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the review (consultation) on March 2, 2017.

Grounds for rejection

1. Sowing field, sampling and natural monument No. 147 that are used by many and unspecified persons are adjacent to the place where their natural scenic views are applied, and there is a high need to protect natural scenery and aesthetic view, and to prevent environmental pollution caused by air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, soil pollution, noise, vibration, dust, dust, dust, etc., so the application place is not suitable for the site

2. There is no specific and numerical data about the degree of malodor by means of livestock shed operation plan, the use of a bundant removal stuff, the use of excreta drying facilities, etc. presented as a means for reducing malodor, and there is no means to determine the degree of reduced malodor and the degree of anticipated malodor, and there is no means to enforce the implementation thereof unless it is operated according to the means for reducing malodor.

3.In light of the lack of explanation of the residents and gathering of the opinions of the residents, and the majority of the residents oppose the construction of a two-way, the clean and clean residential environment shall be maintained rather than the interests of the applicants due to the development.