A. The building area of the building area of a non-resident site in the name of the representative of the company following the initial disposition is the name of the company, the building area of the building area of Plaintiff A M L and 29 lots of land (facilities parts) 3,136 12,605 main water manufacturing business (public machinery parts) 9,581 3,800 main goods manufacturing business (ship parts) 19,443 5,100 main water J-ray valves and similar equipment (water supply ballast) 10,710 3,50 main water P-ray valves 45,1279,684 12,600 main goods manufacturing business (facilities parts) 9,581 3,800 main goods manufacturing business (ship parts) 19,4435,710 main goods P-ray valves and similar equipment (water supply ballast) 10,710 3,500 main goods distribution business, the Plaintiffs and J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Stock”).

(2) On April 17, 2012, the Plaintiff’s land (former address: 29 parcel, etc.; hereinafter the Plaintiffs’ related site is referred to as “instant project site” between the petitioner-gun and the Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-si, and 29 parcel, respectively.

(2) On the ground, the Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement with the head of the Si/Gun/Gu to newly construct a main plant, etc. on the ground, and integrated the Cheongju-si and the petition group on July 20, 2012, and the authority to approve the instant project was entirely transferred to the Cheongju-si Mayor (hereinafter referred to as “petition-gun”), which is an administrative agency at the time of the disposition, to be entered into

3) A project plan with the content as indicated below (hereinafter “instant project plan”)

(2) On October 26, 2012, the petition chief filed an application for approval, respectively, for Plaintiff B and C’s business plan, and on November 19, 2012, the Plaintiff’s business plan was approved (hereinafter “instant original disposition”).

B. On May 15, 2014, the neighboring residents of the project site of this case, including Defendant D, E, F, G, and H, filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the original disposition in this case by asserting that the original disposition in this case was unlawful with the administrative appeals commission of Chungcheongbuk-do, the administrative appeals commission of this case. [In the case of the planned control area in the summary of the decision in this case, whether the location is limited, such as emission of specified air pollutants and air pollution emission facilities under the Clean Air Conservation Act, which are air pollution emission facilities under the Clean Air Conservation Act.