1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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 the addition of the following parts, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional parts

A. On the 6th page of the judgment of the first instance, “the result of on-site inspection by the court of the first instance,” and the 8th page “the land of this case” are added to “the land of this case has a certain distance, but is adjacent to D,” respectively.

B. 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s additional claim (A) at the time when the Plaintiff was selected from the Defendant as the subject of the livestock shed facility modernization project in 2014 from the Defendant, the person to be selected was five including the Plaintiff. Among them, the Defendant did not grant a construction permit to the livestock shed facilities of a J larger size than the Plaintiff, but the instant disposition that rejected the Plaintiff’s application for the construction permit without any reasonable grounds was deviates from and abused from discretion in violation of the principle of equality.

(2) The Defendant received all documents, such as the Plaintiff’s application for a building permit, application for permission for installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities, application for approval for use, report on installation of sewage treatment facilities, etc. in accordance with the guidelines for the implementation of the livestock facility modernization project, and examined all relevant laws and regulations, including the size of the livestock shed in this case’s facilities, essential matters to be observed, and the Building Act, and expressed the public opinion that the Plaintiff is selected as a person for the livestock facility modernization project and newly constructed the livestock shed on the instant land. Nevertheless, the instant disposition contrary thereto is an illegal or unjust disposition that deviates from, abused, abused, or abused the discretion in violation of the principle of trust protection (2.2). According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 5-1 to No. 3 as to the above argument, the Defendant was at the same time as the Plaintiff at the same time.