1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of “determination of the defendant’s assertion” as to the matters asserted by the defendant again in the trial of the court of first instance under Paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument of the trial

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) In light of the fact that most of the users recognize that they included animal funeral facilities in the concept of a cemetery, and that “animal funeral facilities (animal crematory facilities, animal crematory facilities, goods manufacturing facilities, and charnel facilities” were added to and newly established in graveyard-related facilities under Article 3-5 and [Attachment 1] 26 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, “animal funeral facilities” to be built by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to constitute livestock facilities among animal and plant-related facilities, and constitutes crematory facilities among graveyard-related facilities.

I would like to say.

2) At the time of the Plaintiff’s application for the diversion of farmland, the Plaintiff explicitly stated that “the facility for the construction of animal plant-related facilities (animal manager-animal facility), funeral halls for exclusive use of animals, crematoriums, and charnel facilities are installed and operated.” However, the department in charge of the diversion of farmland and the department in charge of the building permit are separated. The Defendant’s building permit manager, who was the Defendant, had known that the use of the instant building was animal funeral facilities at the time of the instant building permit or the instant modification thereof, appears to have stated that the purpose of the building was “animal facilities (livestock facilities-manager)” at the time of the Plaintiff’s intentional application for the construction permit to avoid deliberation by the urban planning committee, and the building in this case was installed immediately adjacent to the main road, and the public interest to achieve the instant disposition is much larger than the disadvantage that the Plaintiff may suffer. (b) Determination 1) animal funeral facilities.