1. The rejection of an application for new establishment of a factory filed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on November 17, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff succeeded to the rights and obligations of a limited partnership company A, a corporation established on September 5, 2014 for the purpose of the business of manufacturing asphalt, etc.

B. On July 29, 2014, a limited partnership company: (a) filed an application for approval to newly establish a factory with the content of newly constructing a asphalt factory with the size of 2,189 square meters in factory sites; (b) size of manufacturing facilities; and (c) size of 267.2 square meters in size of manufacturing facilities; and (d) size of 56 square meters in size of auxiliary facilities (hereinafter “instant factory”); and (b) the Defendant approved the application on August 18, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant new establishment approval disposition”). C.

On October 23, 2014, the Defendant issued a certificate of report on the business generating scattering dust (the period of installation from October 24, 2014 to the date of business completion) to the Plaintiff, and a certificate of report on the installation of air emission facilities (the kinds of pollutants: dust, SOx, NOx, the quantity of pollutants generated: 3.23 tons and year) and a certificate of report on the installation of noise and vibration emission facilities on January 5, 2015, respectively.

On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) changed the size of the instant factory to 6,452 square meters of the site area; (b) 285.2 square meters of the manufacturing facility area; and (c) 406 square meters of the ancillary facilities area (an extension of 350 square meters of the site site); and (d) filed an application for approval of change with the Defendant to newly open a new access road of 3,375 square meters of a size of 3,375 square meters on the land outside C and

(hereinafter referred to as “application for the instant modification”). (e)

On November 17, 2017, the Defendant rejected the application for approval of the instant modification on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not submit a shielding wall installation plan up to the present time, which is a supplementary element, and expressed his intention not to supplement it.”

(B) On March 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant return disposition with the administrative appeals commission of Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, filed a final decision to dismiss the instant return disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 12, 13, Eul evidence 1 and 17 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and all pleadings.