2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s revocation of the report on the business of livestock product sales to the Plaintiff on June 25, 2009 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff (formerly changed: Dongyang department store) is a corporation operating the department store of 1036, 1037, 1038, 12, and 7th underground level (hereinafter referred to as "the department store of this case"). (b) On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a report on change of business with the defendant on change of the place of business of livestock product sales business operated on the 1036th underground floor of Daejeon Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as "the report of this case"). On June 26, 2008, the defendant accepted the report of change on June 25, 2009; (c) on June 25, 2009; (d) on the ground that the plaintiff confirmed on the 1036th ground of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon (Seoul-gu); (d) on the ground that the report of change of this case was made on the 229th underground passage.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, 12, 15, Eul's 2 and 3 (including each number), the purport of all entries, images, and arguments

2. Determination as to the defense before the merits of the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”).

A. Intervenor’s assertion

The plaintiff's report of this case is a self-sufficient report that does not require separate repairs, and the plaintiff's report of this case is a 1036 place of business, not a 1529 place of business, Seo-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, which is the actual place of business. This cannot be deemed as a business report as to 1529 place of business, and the report of this case is invalid due to a report which meets the requirements prescribed in Article 24 of the Construction and Processing of Water Act, Articles 2 and 11 of the Building Act, Article 3-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, Article 38 of the Road Act, and Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act, and it is merely a notification of a simple concept that confirms that the report of this case was invalid from the beginning. Accordingly, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful

B. Determination

(1) The issue of whether a certain act of an administrative agency can be a subject of an appeal cannot be determined abstractly and generally. In a specific case, an administrative disposition is an enforcement of law with respect to a specific fact by an administrative agency as a public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. In mind, the decision should be made individually by taking into account the content and purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form, and procedure of the act, the actual relation between the act and the disadvantage suffered by interested parties, such as the other party, and the principle of administration by the rule of law and the attitude of the administrative agency and interested parties related to the pertinent act (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du167, Nov. 18, 2010).

(2) According to the provisions on the Processing of Livestock Products Act, a person who intends to sell livestock products shall be equipped with facilities that meet the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Article 21(1) of the Act), and report to the Mayor, etc. under the conditions as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Article 24(1) of the Act). If a person who has reported the business intends to change the reported matters, he/she shall report such change to the Mayor, etc. (Article 24(2) of the Act), as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, and Forestry (Article 29 and attached Table 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the Processing of Livestock Products Act). In addition, the Enforcement Rule of the Processing of Livestock Products Act prescribes the standards for facilities for each type of business (Article 29 and attached Table 10 of the Enforcement Rule), and Article 36(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the Defendant

In full view of the contents of the above provisions, it is reasonable to view that in the case of the report of this case, the defendant should actually examine whether the contents of the report meet the requirements prescribed by the Act and determine whether to accept the report. Therefore, it is difficult to view the report of this case as a self-sufficient report that does not require acceptance in the course

(3) Even if the Plaintiff filed the instant report with the location of the place of business, which is not No. 1529, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, where the actual place of business is located, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff, as seen in Article 3. D. (1) of the Act, reported the Plaintiff’s intention to operate the business in the 1529 area, and made a false or inappropriate report on the Plaintiff’s business in relation to the 1036 area, which is not the actual place of business, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff did not report on the business in the 1529 area. Moreover, even if the instant report failed to meet the requirements as asserted by the Intervenor, even if the acceptance was refused or accepted due to an illegal report that failed to meet the requirements, it is not a reporter of invalidity that has no effect.

(4) According to the provisions on the Processing of Livestock Products Act, an administrative agency may order a person who fails to report the change of his/her business to suspend business or impose a penalty surcharge on him/her in lieu of such order (Article 27(1)1 and Article 28(1) of the Act), and a person who operates a business by changing the location of his/her business without reporting the change of his/her business may be punished by a fine for negligence not exceeding three million won (Article 38(1) of the Act). As can be seen, if a report on the change of business is accepted and revoked, a person who fails to report the change of his/her business is in an unstable position as a person who will be subject to business suspension, penalty surcharge, measure of closure, administrative fine, etc. If the report on the change of business continues to operate the business, and thus, a person who operates a business without reporting the change of his/her business becomes subject to the revocation of the report on the change of business can not be seen as having been able to escape from the danger of the cancellation of the legal uncertainty in the revocation of the report.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The Plaintiff’s assertion does not impose any restrictions on the place of business under the Processing of Livestock Products Act, and the connection passage to the second floor of the instant underground floor is a building under the Building Act that was legally constructed and completed, and its use is a sales facility, and it is unlawful to take the instant disposition on the ground that the building ledger has not yet been prepared on the part of the second floor of the instant department store.

B) According to the Daejeon Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Affairs, matters concerning the management, permission to occupy and use roads with a width of less than 20 meters and matters concerning the maintenance and management of underground roads among road appurtenances are delegated to the head of autonomous Gu (Defendant Intervenor). The Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor (Defendant Intervenor) has the authority to direct and supervise the affairs of the head of Seo-gu and to cancel or intermediate them. The Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor did not conflict with the Road Act, the Building Act, and the Building Act, even when using the underground passage of this case as sales facilities, the use of the donation agreement is changed from the connecting passage to the connecting passage and specifically designating the use of the connection passage of the second underground floor of this case. The Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor did not comply with the principle of the principle of the good-faith and the principle of the good-faith and the principle of the good-faith. The Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor did not know that the use of the above underground passage of this case was in violation of the principle of the good-faith and the principle of the good-faith.

(2) The defendant's assertion

A) Even though the actual place of business of the Plaintiff was 1529, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, the Plaintiff filed the instant report with the location of 1036, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon. This is an obvious false report, and the building management ledger and use of the building management ledger and the land use of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, where actual business facilities are installed are not registered, and the land use registration certificate also becomes a connected passage and the land category becomes a connected passage, so the requirements for the report on the business of the Processing of Livestock Products Act cannot be satisfied. In addition, even if the Daejeon Metropolitan City had allowed the Plaintiff to sell local industrial products and agricultural products in the connection of the second underground floor of this case, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have trusted that the characteristics of the business can be entirely different, and the livestock products sales business

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The department store of this case has the main building of the department store and the parking lot building, and the two buildings are not connected to the roads. Accordingly, the Plaintiff installed the underground connecting passage as seen in the following (2) (i) in order to connect the two buildings underground. As a result, the department store of this case was built: (ii) the store part of the main building; (iii) the parking lot and the vehicle access road of the main building; (iv) the parking lot and the vehicle access road of the parking lot building; and (v) the connecting passage connected to each parking lot of the main building and the parking lot building.

(2) In order to connect the underground passage of the instant underground floor to the instant department store and parking building, the Plaintiff installed underground passage connecting the instant underground floor to the instant department store and the instant parking building on March 29, 1993, with the approval of installation of a non-road site (the construction of a non-road site is completed immediately, the period of free use shall be determined, and the management agency and the management agency shall enter into a written entrustment agreement with respect to the maintenance and management of the facilities) and installed underground passage connecting the instant department store and parking building (the Seo-gu, Daejeon) on the underground2, 3, and 4 floors, following a traffic impact assessment in 194.

B) On March 8, 200, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Daejeon Metropolitan City on the donation of underground facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”) at the stores located in the Dong-dong department stores (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”). The main contents are as follows. ① The Plaintiff donated the facilities (structure) connected to the underground 2, 3, and 4 floors to Daejeon Metropolitan City; ② Free use of the said facilities for 20 years (from October 15, 1997 to October 15, 2017) (3) The Plaintiff annually paid road occupation fees regardless of the free use of underground facilities.

(4) Maintenance and management of underground facilities shall be performed by the plaintiff and used for the original approved purposes.

⑤ All matters, including the use and management of underground facilities, shall be dealt with by the Defendant in consultation with the Defendant. However, the connection of the second underground floor of this case caused a difference in the height of the underground parking lot of the department store of this case during the construction process, and the Plaintiff applied for the change of the use of the second underground passage of this case in Daejeon Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “public lighting room, office, reading center, audio-visual room, and connecting passage from the connecting passage”). On December 15, 2000, the Daejeon Metropolitan City was transferred to the Seo-gu Office of Daejeon Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “Sgu Office of Seo-gu”). On the ground that the pertinent business was transferred to the Defendant on December 26, 200 to the 20th underground passage of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant request for the change of the occupancy and use of the second underground passage of this case, the Defendant submitted a request for the change of the usage of the second underground passage of this case to the Defendant on December 26, 2016.

(e) the details of the sales of the Typt;

① On September 2004, Daejeon Metropolitan City determined that there was no problem with the National Property Deliberation Committee, Daejeon Metropolitan City roads, and Seo-gu Offices regarding the installation of sales facilities in the connection passage of the second underground floor of this case with the aim of moving the eart, which was operated by the Small and Medium Business Support Center of Daejeon Metropolitan City, into the connection passage of the second underground floor of this case.

② In addition, the Daejeon Metropolitan City agreed with the Plaintiff on the following facts: (a) it is difficult to allow the Plaintiff to use the land as a private interest in the use of public property pursuant to Article 7 of the Convention (a change of structure and restitution to its original state at the Plaintiff’s expense, without any conditions necessary for public purposes in the future); (b) it is difficult for the Plaintiff to use the land as a private interest in the implementation of the policy of the Daejeon Metropolitan City, such as a local product display and sales place; (c) it is possible to resolve the problems regarding private purposes by using the land as a private interest

③ Accordingly, on September 23, 2004, the Daejeon Metropolitan City sent a public notice stating that the use of the passage of the instant underground second floor connecting to the Daejeon Metropolitan City is to be designated (the purpose of use as a sales facility changed) by using the underground connecting passage, sales facility, cooperative facility, auxiliary facility (ware), logistics club, etc. (the purpose of use as a sales facility). On September 23, 2004, the Daejeon Metropolitan City: (a) decided to allow the use of the eart to sell the eart to the connection passage of the instant underground second floor connecting the second floor connecting the Daejeon Metropolitan City; and (b) requested the Plaintiff to cooperate in the use as a local product exhibition store for the purpose of supporting the distribution of the small and medium enterprises in the Daejeon Metropolitan City; and (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff submitted to Daejeon Metropolitan City a letter of performance confirming consultation with the Daejeon Metropolitan City related departments on the management of local sales stores in accordance with the instant agreement, continuous payment of road occupation fees, compliance with the operation and use of other local products exhibition facilities, etc.

① On the other hand, Daejeon Metropolitan City notified the Defendant of the aforementioned plan for the transfer of the e-mail, including the modification of the purpose of the use of the passage connecting the second floor of this case.

⑤ Since December 2004, Tyart had been doing business since the connection passage to the second underground floor of this case (store 81 square meters and warehouse 19 square meters).

F) The Plaintiff promoted a plan to rearrange and repair stores around January 31, 2007, the Daejeon Metropolitan City Small and Medium Enterprise-type Joint Support Center of Small and Medium Enterprises requested the transfer of the e-mail to the 1st floor or the 1st underground floor of the instant department store in light of accessibility around January 31, 2007, and the Intervenor also accepted the request for cooperation on February 26, 2007, and transferred the e-mail to the 1st underground floor of the instant department store. The connecting passage to the 2nd underground floor of the instant case is to be used as food store and the e-mail facility. The food center was installed on July 3, 2008 in consideration of the cost of KRW 7 billion on the 2nd underground floor of the instant department store including the connecting passage to the 2nd underground floor of the instant case and operated its business from that time thereafter.

(3) The disposition of this case and its subsequent proceedings

(A) Around June 2009, the Defendant: (a) sent a report to the press that the instant department store operated food and livestock products sales business in the underground passage in which the instant department store was unable to sell food and livestock products; and (b) checked the violation on June 5, 2009, which was different from the details reported by the Plaintiff; (c) confirmed that the Defendant occupied the instant underground floor connecting the second floor, which is a road by land category, in contrast to the details reported by the Plaintiff. In order to revoke the acceptance of the instant report ex officio, the Defendant sent a prior notice to the Plaintiff on June 8, 2009; (d) received the Plaintiff’s submission of opinions on June 18, 2009; and (e) issued the instant disposition on June 25, 2009.

C) On September 8, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to occupy and use a road (the purpose of change) to change the purpose of occupation and use of an underground connecting road, sales facility, cooperation facility, ancillary facility (ware, logistics club line) from "the first intersection road" to "the underground connecting road, sales facility, cooperation facility, and ancillary facility (ware)," and the Defendant requested supplementation of the application document stating that "the purpose of occupation and use of a road is not changed to sales facility, assistance facility, ancillary facility, but it is not possible to change to the connecting passage and display of goods," and on October 28, 2009, the Plaintiff permitted the change to "the connecting passage and display of goods."

(4) The present condition of the underground passage connecting the second underground floor of this case is located between the second underground floor of the department store of this case and the second underground floor of the parking lot of this case. On the ground that the floor of the underground parking lot of this case and the second underground floor connecting the second underground floor of this case, vehicle traffic is impossible due to the difference of not less than one meter between the floor of the department store of this case and the floor of the second underground floor connecting the second underground floor of this case. Among the underground connecting the second underground floor of this case, the part used as the store of this case is operated with one structure, such as store facilities, interior house, etc. to the extent that it is almost impossible to distinguish it from the store of this case. Some parts are used by the Plaintiff for remodeling the second underground floor of this case as the rear underground floor of this case. There are fire-fighting facilities, toilets, waterworks facilities, etc. on the second underground floor connecting

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, entry and video of Gap's 4 through 10, 16, 17, 20, 26 through 31, 51, 52, 54, Eul's 4, 5, 7 through 12 (including each number), the testimony of the witness A of the first instance court, the result of each on-site inspection by the court of the first instance and the court of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) In full view of the above facts as to whether the report in this case was false or not, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of on-site verification by the court of first instance and the court of first instance, the plaintiff filed the report in this case with the pertinent facilities prescribed in [Attachment Table 10] of Article 29 of the Enforcement Rule of the Processing of Livestock Products Act (However, as seen in paragraph (2) below, the facility requirements that the place of business should be a building under the Building Act are not satisfied), and even if the business facilities are installed in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon-dong No. 1529, Seo-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-dong No. 1529, it is recognized that the business report was made with only the second underground floor of No. 1036, No. 25,42, and 51. However, the plaintiff's assertion that the report in this case was inappropriate for the plaintiff to report the location of the business in this case as to whether it was false or inappropriate for the plaintiff to report.

(1) Where a business report is filed by leasing part of a building store constructed on several lots, the fact that the business report is deemed to be general by the representative lot number of the building concerned.

② The proprietor, who runs the instant business by leasing and operating a part of the instant department store or a neighboring parking building, had recorded only the department store representative number (1036, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon), while entering the location of the place of business or the place of business at the time of the business declaration or business registration. ③ The Plaintiff attached the facility details and arrangement to the instant report at the time of the instant report. As such, it appears that the Defendant could have anticipated that the Plaintiff would have known the Plaintiff’s place of business in the connection passage to the second basement floor of the instant case while examining the documents related

(2) Violation of the laws and regulations on the Processing of Livestock Products

A) According to the provisions of Articles 21 and 24 of the Processing of Livestock Products Act and Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, a person who intends to engage in livestock products sales business shall prepare the facilities for the sea as prescribed in Article 29 [Attachment Table 10] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and shall report the fact when the location of the reported facilities is changed. Article 29 [Attachment Table 10] 3-A of the above Enforcement Rule defines "building" as "building where the processing facilities of livestock products, raw materials, and storage facilities of products are installed" (hereinafter referred to as "building"). According to Article 29 [Attachment Table 10] 6-A (1) of the above Enforcement Rule, the term "building" should be used in the livestock products sales business operated by the plaintiff as it is, and the term "building" should be jointly installed in the building independently or separately from the facilities to be used for other purposes. In light of this, it is not reasonable to see the location of the livestock products sales business in the building or the facilities attached thereto as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

C. In full view of the purport of oral argument as to the instant case, the connection passage to the second underground floor of this case is not only a road built after obtaining approval from an intervenor pursuant to Article 40(1) and (2) of the Road Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993) and Article 24(5)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13958 of Aug. 14, 1993), but also a building under the Building Act. Thus, if the Plaintiff seeking to operate livestock products sales business has filed a report with the location of the place of business of the instant second underground floor which does not fall under a building under the Building Act, and if the Plaintiff violated Article 20 [Attachment 10] and Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act without a construction report or a building permit, the Plaintiff’s right to use the second underground floor connecting the second underground floor of this case may be revoked by the competent administrative agency’s act of public interest and its interest need not be revoked.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s report of this case was made with the passage connecting the second basements of this case, which does not fall under the building under the Building Act, as the location of the place of business, and in violation of Articles 21 and 24 of the Processing of Livestock Products Act, and Articles 29 [Attachment 10] and 36 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. Thus, the Defendant may revoke the disposition of this case on the ground that there was any defect in the acceptance of the report of this case

C. As to this, the Plaintiff alleged that the instant disposition by the Defendant was unlawful in violation of the principle of good faith and the principle of proportionality, and considering the following, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition by the Defendant violated the principle of proportionality or abused discretion, as well as that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s trust interest. Accordingly, the instant disposition is lawful.

① It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s report of this case constitutes a false report. However, in light of the content of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff appears to have sufficiently recognized that it was impossible for the Plaintiff to use the instant underground floor connecting the second floor as a store in the instant department store without consultation with the Defendant or the departments related to Daejeon Metropolitan City. However, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff underwent formal consultation with the content of the instant agreement or obtained approval on the use as a store.

② Even if the Intervenor uses the connection passage to the second floor of the instant underground floor as a sales facility, he determined that he could use it as a Tart shop because there is no conflict with the Road Act, the Building Act, etc., and that the Defendant notified of such content by the Daejeon Metropolitan City at the time did not raise any objection. However, if he compared the Tart and the Plaintiff’s livestock product sales business, it is a store with a strong public interest nature of promoting publicity and sales of local specialty, whereas the Plaintiff’s livestock product sales business completely differs from its nature and purpose as a store for the sole purpose of an individual’s profit. In particular, the Plaintiff’s livestock products sales business satisfies the legitimate reporting requirements under the provisions of the individual law governing it. Considering these two business differences, it cannot be viewed that the Plaintiff’s use as a private place of business, which is a private place of business, should be allowed. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff’s ground that Tart and the Plaintiff’s livestock products sales business was formed as a link to the second floor of the instant underground floor of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is without merit.

③ As alleged by the Plaintiff, even though the Defendant allowed the use of Tymart burial and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the use of the instant underground second-rise connections as sales stores of the instant department stores, and thereby the Plaintiff’s trust in relation thereto was formed, if the Defendant or Daejeon Metropolitan City knew that it was using the instant underground second-rise connections as the Plaintiff’s business place, it is an erroneous administrative act that allowed or aided and abetted the operation of illegal occupation and use of and livestock products sales business, and it was only an illegal business profit by taking advantage of the fact that the Plaintiff knew that such error was committed, and thus, the possibility of revocation was anticipated. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s protection of the above profits on the ground of the good faith principle through the instant lawsuit is an erroneous administrative act that implied or aided in the operation of the illegal occupation and use of roads and livestock products sales business, and thus, it cannot be accepted as it is by the court.

④ In addition, the connection passage to the 2nd underground floor of this case is land category and the person who intends to occupy and use the road should obtain permission from the road management agency (see Article 38 of the Road Act), and the purpose of occupation and use of the connection passage to the 2nd underground floor of this case does not include the use as sales facilities, and the Plaintiff illegally occupies and uses the connecting passage to the 2nd underground floor of this case. In addition, since the report of this case is practically a place which is not a building under the Building Act, the facility standards prescribed by the Processing of Livestock Products Act are also contrary to the above standards for the disposal of Livestock Products Act. If the Plaintiff’s above act is accepted for the reason that there is a disadvantage that the Plaintiff would suffer from cancellation of the beneficial administrative disposition, it is possible to allow the unauthorized occupation and use of the road in this case as a precedent to allow such unauthorized occupation and use of the road in this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is much more necessary to accept the Plaintiff’s administrative disposition in this case’s violation of the principle of proportionality to the extent that it does not violate individual laws.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal shall be accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as per Disposition

Judges, private leaves

Judges or Superintendent General

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.