1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit including permission for development in the form of complex civil petitions and a report on the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities, etc., in order to newly build animal and plant-related facilities (a stable-ship shed) of a total floor area of 1,164.6 square meters (hereinafter “the instant site”) with respect to the 2,929 square meters (hereinafter “the instant site”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On September 4, 2017, when the Defendant received opinions from neighboring residents of the instant application site to oppose the new construction of the instant fraternity, the Defendant, by holding a civil petition coordination committee of Kimcheon-si on September 4, 2017, intended to hear the opinions of the Plaintiff and neighboring residents and resolve the dispute smoothly, but failed to mediate.

C. Accordingly, on September 11, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the instant application to the Plaintiff on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). In accordance with Articles 56 (Permission for Development Acts) and 58 (Standards, etc. for Permission for Development Acts) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and guidelines for the operation of permission for development activities, taking into account the actual use of land in neighboring areas, land utilization plan, etc., and concerns over environmental pollution, such as air quality contamination and dust decentralization due to the establishment of a stable case. The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is unlawful as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power for the following reasons.

1 The instant application does not fall under a zone where livestock raising is restricted, but is far away from 500 meters to 800 meters from the boundary of neighboring villages. The Defendant permitted the new construction of multi-household houses around April 2017, but did not commence the commencement of construction.