자동차관리사업등록신청반려처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 2004, the current status of the use of the instant business office 1) On the Daejeon Seo-gu B and C’s ground, Daejeon Sung-gu, Daejeon, B and C, the three-story motor vehicle management facilities of the general steel structure (refinite) container (refinite), hereinafter “D building”).
(2) On June 3, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the construction of the D Building No. 223 of the second floor (hereinafter “instant business establishment”).
(2) On June 4, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E to lease the instant establishment to E for 18 months.
3) From June 17, 201 to June 3, 2013, E engaged in the automobile management business (trade business) under the Automobile Management Act. Since then, E changed its place of business (location) to 231 of the same D building, the total floor area of the instant place of business, exhibition facilities, etc., and the Defendant accepted the registration of the E Automobile Management Business (Trade Business) on June 3, 2013. (B) The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the Plaintiff’s automobile management business (trade business) and the return thereof with the Defendant on April 25, 2014 to directly run the automobile management business (trade business) at the instant place of business. The Defendant returned the Plaintiff’s registration application on May 19, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff falls short of the registration standard (sale business) under the provisions of Article 53 of the Automobile Management Act and the Ordinance on the Registration Standards for the Daejeon Metropolitan City [Attachment 1].
(2) The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Daejeon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 25, 2014. The ground for recognition was found to have not existed. 【The fact that there was no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 2 (which has a serial number) and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act amended on November 23, 2012, as amended on November 23, 2012, is as follows: (a) the size of exhibition facilities is 660 square meters among the registration criteria for trade business.