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 court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the court's explanation is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of the first instance except where the court of the first instance renders a dismissal of the 6th to 17th of the

(1) In addition, the court below's findings and determination that rejected the Plaintiff's assertion are justifiable even if the Plaintiff filed an appeal and the evidence submitted by the court were examined in the first instance court, and the court's findings and determination on the first instance court and the court's rejection of the Plaintiff's assertion are justifiable. [The "area of the facility of this case" is 10,44 square meters, so the "area of the facility of this case" in subparagraph 4 (p) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act cannot be deemed to be "less the total floor area used for the same building is less than 50 square meters" in subparagraph 4 (p) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act. Even if the opinion differs, the facility of this case is subject to the permission for or reporting on installation of emission facilities under the Clean Air Conservation Act, the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act, and the Noise and Vibration Control Act, so it does not fall under subparagraph 4 (p) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act [Attachment 17].

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.