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 judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed or added as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

(Other contents asserted by the Plaintiff in this court are not significantly different from the contents asserted by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, and even if all of the evidence presented in the first instance trial was examined, the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable). 5 2 2 Doctrine evidence is added to “A evidence No. 18, B No. 18, 21, and 26.”

From 6 7 lines below to 3 lines below shall be modified to the following:

The Plaintiff asserted that, despite the occurrence of flood damage in the vicinity of the instant livestock shed, the instant livestock shed only did not suffer flood damage, and that, as long as the height of the ground surface is higher than that of surrounding farmland and so long as it is not a natural disaster, the possibility of flooding of the instant livestock shed is lower than that of the instant livestock shed. However, the instant livestock shed is located below a maximum of 110cc compared to that of the surrounding land, and the Plaintiff’s site for composts where he intends to install excreta treatment facilities is located at a lower area than that of the instant livestock shed. However, as seen earlier, the instant livestock shed site was located at a lower area than that of the instant livestock shed. However, it is difficult to view that the instant livestock shed site was located at a higher level than 154 meters higher than that of the instant livestock shed, and that the Defendant did not sufficiently predict and take a disposition from the instant livestock shed to the lower level than that of the past by typhoons or heavy rains. In light of the circumstances that the Defendant asserted that it would be reasonable.