beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.05.26 2015구합78939

담배소매인지정불가처분취소 등

Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part on the claim for revocation of approval for change of the location of each tobacco retailer’s business office and the illegality of omission is verified.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

A was designated as a tobacco retailer by the Defendant on November 2, 2007, and sold tobacco in the name of “C” (hereinafter “C”) in the first floor of building B in Jung-gu, Seoul (Seoul) (hereinafter “the first disposition of designation as a tobacco retailer”). On June 11, 2015, A filed an application to change the location of a tobacco retailer into “7 square meters out of the first floor of building D-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul,” and obtained approval from the Defendant on June 18, 2015.

(1) The Plaintiff established convenience points at a place where the former C Office was located and applied for designation as tobacco retailers on August 7, 2015. On August 13, 2015, the Defendant applied for designation as “the first approval disposition for the change of location” and “the new C Office” are less than 50 meters, the distance between the Plaintiff’s business office and the new C Office is less than 5 meters.

“The ground for recognition” was that: (a) A applied for the approval of change of the location of a new C business office on November 17, 2015; and (b) obtained approval from the Defendant on November 24, 2015 (hereinafter “the second approval of change of location”); (c) there was no dispute as to the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the second approval of change of location and claim for confirmation of illegality of omission; (d) the Plaintiff’s new C business office was located within 50 meters from the nearby business office at the time of the first approval of change of location; and (e) the Plaintiff’s new business office was not equipped with separate external appearance and facility regulations, such as tobacco signboards and tobacco plates, until the second approval of change of location was issued; and (e) the second approval of the location was not equipped with separate appearance and facility regulations.