1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition to return waste recycling declarations to the Plaintiff on March 25, 2011.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff cultivated pine trees in the area of 1,224 square meters prior to the Jeonnam-gun B, 40 square meters prior to C, and 1,736 square meters prior to D (hereinafter “instant farm”).

On February 2, 2007, the Plaintiff installed one vinyl (a 100 square meters wide; hereinafter “the instant vinyl”) for the purpose of the original breeding facility within the instant farm, and laid down the original 50-60 mar (at the present 120 mar) in the instant farm from around that time, and laid down the original marth of 50-60 mar (at the present 120 mar) in the instant farm, and cultivated trees in such a way that the original marbs the original mar, who was a person in the said farm, embling, eating, harmful insects, etc., and the original marbs of the original marbs, which had the name

Since then, the Plaintiff reported waste recycling, on October 8, 201, that he/she would bring food wastes to a restaurant near a person whose original feed is insufficient, use such food wastes for the original food for recycling. On the other hand, the Plaintiff reported waste recycling to the Defendant that he/she would transport food wastes (maths) to recycle it as feed of 800 maris, which was stored within the farm of this case after transporting and crushing food wastes (maths).

On October 19, 2010, the Defendant shall obtain a report on waste-generating and disposal facilities in accordance with the former Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (amended by Act No. 10893, Jul. 21, 201; hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”) from the Plaintiff on October 19, 201, and where the area of livestock waste-generating facilities due to the raising of ducks is not less than 150 square meters (hereinafter “the instant farm”), and the instant farm constitutes an area in which the distance from the F Village in Y E is restricted pursuant to Article 3 of the Ordinance on the Restriction on the Restriction of Livestock Raising of Ma-gun (hereinafter “Ordinance on the Restriction of Livestock Raising”).

(hereinafter referred to as "the ground for the second disposition of this case") rejected it on the ground that it was the reason for the second disposition.

On March 16, 2011, the Plaintiff reported waste recycling to the Defendant in the form of an objection.