2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On July 2, 2014, B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) entered into a lease agreement with C on the previous divided store “the part in which the size of 106 and 107 square meters (hereinafter “the part in which the “instant building”) was divided into “b” in the shape of “B” (hereinafter “the part in which the “divided store”) from the left-hand side of the forest,” and “the remaining part (hereinafter “the part in which the “instant convenience store”) was entered”)” with the head of the Dong branch office as the previous convenience store (hereinafter “previous original disposition”) on July 28, 2014.

【Glim1】

B. Meanwhile, on July 23, 2009, E operates tobacco retail business with the trade name called “GV” in the above place since it was ordered by the head of Dong/Dong branch office to designate a tobacco retailer by designating the F branch office as the place of business in the Kasung-si.

(hereinafter “the neighboring place of business of this case”). C.

On March 18, 2015, the Defendant issued a ruling to revoke the previous original disposition (hereinafter “previous ruling”) on the ground that “The result of examining whether the criteria for designation of tobacco retailers at the time of the previous original disposition meet the criteria for designation, without hearing the opinions of retailers in the neighboring place of business, and the act of installing the previous divided store and barc is deemed to have been conducted for the purpose of evading the provision on distance restriction under the Tobacco Business Act.”

In this regard, B filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the previous ruling as Suwon District Court 2015Guhap1510, but the above court held that a distance measurement was conducted in the presence of retailers of neighboring places of business after the previous original disposition on December 15, 2015, the procedural defect is not cured, but the previous divided store is its own store.