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 judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is that the court of first instance, as additional evidence submitted by this court, rejected each statement of evidence Nos. 19 through 23, 27, and 32, which is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff violated the principle of equality, the principle of self-defense of trust, and it is identical to the statement of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition of the plaintiff's main grounds for appeal as set forth in Articles 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Plaintiff’s external restoration company operated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant external restoration company”).

(2) In the event that a person installs a self-fashacker in the place of business and carries a minor part of a motor vehicle, he/she is operating in the form of breaking the can presses in the form of fash. Therefore, the external restoration business entity of this case should not regard the entire place of business as a painting facility, and the space in the can presses is maximum of 4.5 cubic meters, and the floor area ratio is calculated based on the quantity of pollutants discharged by the Plaintiff business, and the floor area ratio is calculated based on the quantity of pollutants discharged by the Plaintiff business, and it does not exceed 5 cubic meters. Thus, the seal installed in the external restoration business entity of this case does not constitute an emission facility under the Clean Air Conservation Act. Even if a business entity falls under an emission facility under the Clean Air Conservation Act, the total amount of air pollutants generated per year is less than 2 tons, and thus, the external restoration business entity of this case is not an automobile-type facility related to the motor vehicle, but is not a facility subject to permission or reporting for repair, and the total area of less than 500 square meters.