1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B, on December 8, 2009, installed a 3,836.84 square meters of livestock excreta discharge facilities (hereinafter “instant livestock shed”) on the ground of the 3,207.8 square meters in Nam-si, Nam-si (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Defendant with permission to install livestock excreta discharge facilities.

B. On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land and livestock shed in KRW 400 million from the Plaintiff, and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant land and livestock shed on November 3, 2015.

On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a change (representative) in livestock excreta discharge facilities on the instant land (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. On March 30, 2016, the Defendant rejected the instant application for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The reason why the change of representative is impossible - A group civil petition is anticipated at the time of the report of the representative's change due to the occurrence of a group civil petition of residents in the neighboring village due to the settlement of money for several years, and if the representative fails to engage in livestock raising for at least three years without justifiable grounds pursuant to Article 18 (1) 2 of the former Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (amended by Act No. 14881, Dec. 27, 2016; hereinafter "Act on Livestock Excreta"), the permission for installation or closure must be revoked, and the report of change is not possible.

D. On May 2, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke permission for livestock excreta discharge facilities related to livestock excreta of this case on the ground of Article 18(1)2 of the Livestock Excreta Act on the ground that the Defendant did not engage in livestock raising for at least three years without justifiable grounds.

E. B filed a lawsuit with the Jeonju District Court 2016Guhap2059 seeking revocation of the Defendant’s revocation of the permission for livestock excreta discharge facilities related to the livestock pens in the instant case, and the Plaintiff participated in the lawsuit as an intervenor assisting the Plaintiff.

The above court rendered a judgment dismissing B’s claim.

The Gwangju High Court, which is dissatisfied with B, is the case.