1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of the land indicated in the attached list and the land attached thereto, and the 1st 81.06 square meters of the single floor, the 1st 81.06 square meters of the aggregate steel structure, the 15.84 square meters of the 1st lux, the 15.84 square meters of the 1st lux, and the 15.84 square meters of the luxical aggregate structure, and the 74.8 square meters of the exhibition hall, and Plaintiff B is the owner of the 2th lux of the land listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”) and the 184.21 square meters of the 1st luxal aggregate structure, and the 168.3 square meters of the 1st lux of the 1st luxary warehouse facilities.

B. Meanwhile, the Cheongju-si, including each of the instant land, was designated as a control area. However, on January 2, 2009, the Cheongbuk-do Governor made a decision and public notice on the fact that the Cheongbuk-do Governor changed the specific use area to a production management area (subdivided) (Public Notice C).

C. On February 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs: (a) filed an application with the Defendant for revocation of designation of a specific use area (hereinafter “instant application”) with the purport that “the designation of a specific use area (hereinafter “instant application”) to the effect that “the use area of each of the instant land is changed from the production management area to the planned management area, as buildings are constructed on each of the instant land; (b) it is unreasonable to designate a specific use area as a production management area where it is impossible to operate a restaurant, rest area, etc. as a production management area; and (c) as such, it does not go through the procedure to gather opinions at the time of alteration of the specific use area.” (hereinafter “instant reply”). The Defendant

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense of safety cannot be acknowledged as the right to file an application under the relevant laws and regulations to seek the alteration of the urban planning already finalized, and the response of this case can be seen as an administrative disposition that is subject to administrative litigation.