1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts are not disputed between the parties or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

From March 30, 2014, the Plaintiff was raising a dog while using a building on the ground of 2,693 square meters in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si as a breeding facility leased from C. On November 10, 2017, the Kimpo-si Mayor designated the said land as an area subject to livestock breeding restriction for all livestock species pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Ordinance on the Disposal and Restrictions of Livestock Excreta in Kimpo-si (amended by Ordinance No. 1455, Nov. 10, 2017; hereinafter the instant Ordinance).

B. On June 15, 2018, the Defendant confirmed that, while guiding and inspecting the above site, the Plaintiff installed and operated a dog breeding facility, which is a livestock excreta discharging facility (hereinafter “waste discharging facility”), without filing a report under the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “ livestock excreta Act”).

C. On May 28, 2019, the Defendant issued an order to suspend the use of the instant discharge facilities (hereinafter the instant disposition) pursuant to Article 18(1)4 of the Livestock Excreta Act on the ground that the instant discharge facilities were installed and operated without reporting the installation of a livestock excreta discharge facility at a place where the installation of discharge facilities is prohibited.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport.

1) Since the Livestock Excreta Act was amended in around 2018, the scope of the subject matter of a report on livestock excreta discharge facilities has been expanded, it is unlawful to apply the above provision to the Plaintiff, who operated the instant waste discharge facilities prior to that time (section 1). (2) Since the Plaintiff did not leak excreta using a dog by spreading it into dry field, the instant disposition is harsh to the Plaintiff, who maintained his livelihood with a dog breeding.

(Chapter 2). (b)

related.