2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On November 2, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for the liquefied petroleum gas-related business in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act (amended by Act No. 10711, May 24, 2011; hereinafter “Certified Petroleum Gas Act”) with respect to the Defendant for the liquefied petroleum gas-related business (facilities details: 30 tons of the underground burial tank storage tank, 3 motor vehicle impulses, 1 compressor, and 1 liquid pumps).

B. On November 19, 2010, the Defendant rejected the instant application to the effect that it is impossible in violation of the provisions of Article 6 of the Ordinance on the Criteria for Permission for the Permission for the High-si Gas Business, etc. (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) since the instant application is located within an area of not less than 200m square meters from the outer surface of multi-family housing with a total floor area of not less than 1,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 6 subparag. 1 of the instant Ordinance, which served as the basis for the instant disposition by the Defendant, set the indefinite concept of “population-populated buildings” at will, and uniformly limits the permission for liquefied petroleum gas-related business in an area within 200 meters in straight line, and is complementary to Article 3(4) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act and the Enforcement Rule of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy No. 159, Jan. 23, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) [Attachment 3] [Attachment 10], is null and void, and the instant disposition based on the invalid Ordinance is unlawful, and thus, should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

(1) Article 4(1)1 and 3 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act provides that “No business facility shall be installed in an area where the installation of a business facility is deemed inappropriate in view of connecting roads, urban planning, population concentration, etc.” under the standards for permission for liquefied petroleum gas-related business (Article 4(1)1 and 3) and “no business facility shall be installed in such an area where the installation of a business is deemed inappropriate in light of the connection roads, urban planning, population concentration, etc.” (Article 4(2) of the same Act provides for detailed matters concerning

On the other hand, Article 6 of the Ordinance of this case provides that permission may be restricted in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act, and subparagraph 1 of the same Article provides that "the filling business in an area within 200 meters in straight line from the outside of a population-populated building."

(2) Meanwhile, Article 3(4) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act provides that the facility standards and technical standards for the filling, collective supply, and sale of liquefied petroleum gas and the manufacture of gas appliances shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy. Accordingly, Article 10(1)1 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act provides that in the case of standards for the placement of facilities, technology, inspection, precise safety diagnosis, and safety evaluation of liquefied petroleum gas, among the standards for container charging facilities, the standards for the placement of facilities among the standards for container charging facilities shall be determined by ordinances to ensure that in the case of liquefied petroleum gas filling facilities whose storage capacity is more than 20 tons but not more than 30 tons, the safe distance from the outer side to the boundary of the place of business (in the case of installation of storage facilities under underground, the distance from 0.7m to the boundary of the place of business by storage capacity, i.e., the distance from the outer side to the protection facilities of housing and buildings that accommodate persons, etc. within the limit of twice the above standards may be determined by ordinances.

(3) Examining the aforementioned relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the safety distance in relation to the standards for permission for liquefied petroleum gas charging business can only be prescribed by municipal ordinances within a maximum of two times the safety distance as stipulated in the above [Attachment Table 3], and safety distance cannot be set at will in excess of the above standards. However, Article 6 subparagraph 1 of the Ordinance of this case limits the rights of the applicant for the installation of charging stations by deviating from the scope delegated by the liquefied petroleum gas laws and regulations, which goes beyond the bounds of delegated legislation, and the term "population-populated building" also establishes the indefinite concept of "population-populated building" and it is not effective as a provision contrary to the principle of clarity of the law. Furthermore, in this case, even if the standards for strengthening the safety distance within a maximum of two times as above are applied to the charging station (storage capacity of 30 tons, underground burial style) scheduled to be installed by the Plaintiff, the safety distance from each outside of the storage facility of this case (in the case of a tank entry and charging place, the location of the Plaintiff cannot be determined to be 300m or more than 4m of the above residential site.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Kim Su-cheon (Presiding Judge) Na Jong-hun