Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff (1) since the food business permission of this case is not conditional permission, there is a legitimate reason to cancel it. The plaintiff did not engage in an act falling under the reason for cancellation of permission of the Food Sanitation Act in ombudsman with the above business among them. The defendant's disposition of cancellation of permission of this case is illegal since it was without the reason for the disposition. (2) Even if the above permission is recognized as conditional permission, the plaintiff has invested a large amount of funds that he believed that he can continue to engage in the business in the future without a conditional permission, and the defendant also has imposed and collected the license tax of 1986 and 1 year and 6 months or more, and it is illegal that the defendant's disposition of cancellation on the ground of the defendant's work's error is deprived of the plaintiff's trust interest and its legal safety. (3) The plaintiff's above assertion is groundless, and the administrative agency's cancellation of permission of this case is without merit in the above 8-year period without a hearing of this case under the provisions of Article 64 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

First of all, the issue of whether the permission for public restaurant business of this case against the plaintiff is conditional permission is established when it is externally indicated. Thus, even if the defendant's internal condition of the permission for business of the plaintiff is conditional, the permission for business against the plaintiff should be deemed as conditional permission for business as long as the conditions of permission are not indicated externally against the plaintiff as the defendant is the person.

Therefore, the disposition of revoking the business license of this case requires the grounds for revoking the business license under Article 58 of the Food Sanitation Act, and the procedural law must undergo the hearing procedure under Article 64 of the same Act and Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (the purpose of the legal system that requires the hearing procedure is to give the business operator an opportunity to submit materials in favor of the business operator so that the existing rights of the business operator are not infringed unfairly due to the administrative disposition, so it should be regarded as a mandatory provision). In this case, there is no ground for revoking the business license of this case, or when revoking the business license of this case, there is no assertion and proof as to the cancellation of the hearing procedure under the above Article 58 of the Food Sanitation Act. Rather, according to the statement of No. 3 of the Food Sanitation Act (the notification of revoking the food business license of this case), which does not conflict with the establishment, and the testimony of the witness so far as the permission of this case against the plaintiff is conditional for the fixed period of permission of the public restaurant business, and the defendant has to revoke the cancellation of this case without any reason.

In other words, the defendant asserts that even if the plaintiff's assertion is well-grounded, the above place of business is located in a Do park in a remote mountain area, and since the above place of business is a food fee, miscellaneous, or commemorative shop where public restaurant business cannot be conducted in accordance with the plan for facilities of the Do Park in the East Sea under the provisions of the Natural Parks Act, the above permission for business against the plaintiff is acknowledged, confusion in the guidance and control of sanitary entertainment business places and the handling of authorized and permitted business affairs, and reflects the public welfare such as disturbing the order of commercial transactions in the park area, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed.

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 10-1 and 2 (Adjustment Plan and Approval of the Contents of Virtual Facilities), the evidence No. 14 (Land Use Plan), and the witness testimony in the above witness evidence No. 14 (Land Use Plan), in which the authenticity of the plaintiff's business place is recognized by testimony of the number of witnesses, the fact that the plaintiff's business place is located within the Dong-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do's collective facility district land use plan under the Natural Parks Act, in terms of the Natural Parks Act. However, the above circumstance alone alone is insufficient to recognize that the cancellation of the disposition of this case is considerably inappropriate for public welfare, and there is no other evidence to support this, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, since the cancellation disposition of this case by the defendant should be revoked in an unlawful manner, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the objection is justified, and the lawsuit costs are assessed against the losing defendant.

Judge Jeong-man (Presiding Judge)