2. On September 27, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition of non-permission to file an application for a liquefied petroleum gas filling business with the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

B. Relevant statutes

This court's explanation about each of the above parts is the same as the statement of the reasons in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Determination

1) Whether the first disposition is lawful

In cases of complex civil petitions subject to permission, authorization, approval, recommendation, consultation, confirmation, etc. by many related agencies (hereinafter referred to as "authorization permission") in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in order to realize the purpose of a civil petition, even in cases of complex civil petitions for which one of them is applied without applying for necessary authorization or permission, if the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are invoked by other Acts and subordinate statutes, or where the relevant acts are absolutely prohibited by other Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is evident that the realization thereof is objectively impossible, such authorization or permission may be determined by taking into account such provisions (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du8766, Mar. 24, 200).

In light of such legal principles, it is recognized that the Plaintiff obtained land transaction permission from the Defendant on November 1, 201, which was a development-restricted zone under the Development Restriction Act, for the instant land falling under the land transaction permission zone under the National Land Planning Act, as “agricultural purposes.” The instant land was not used for purposes other than permitted purposes since the period for compulsory use of the instant land has not elapsed as of September 19, 201, and September 27, 2012, which was the date of the instant application for permission, and the date of the instant disposition. However, Article 118(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act plans to change the permitted purposes pursuant to these procedures, if it is possible to change the purpose of use of the instant land, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff failed to meet the standards under Article 4(1)6 of the Large Petroleum Planning Act, solely on the ground that the period for compulsory use of the instant land was not expired at the time of the instant disposition, even if the Plaintiff did not report the change to the instant land to the Defendant by June 26, etc.

2) Whether the grounds for the second and third disposition are legitimate

This court's explanation on each of the above parts is the same as the statement of 8, 16, 12, and 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Accordingly, each of the plaintiff's arguments is with merit.

3) Whether the fourth disposition is lawful

The defendant presented that "C shall secure a lane above the standard set forth in the Road Standards Regulations for the advancement and access to a place of business in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but such business plan has not been submitted, and in order to install a road access route, it is necessary to obtain prior permission to occupy and use a road site adjoining the land in question." The plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements under Article 4 (1) 3 and 6 of the Large Petroleum Act. Therefore, the defendant asserts that the filling station in this case does not meet the requirements under Article 4 (1) 3 of the Large Petroleum Act, which is the permission standard set forth in Article 4 (1) 3 of the Large Petroleum Act, "it is deemed that the construction of business facilities is not appropriate in consideration of the connecting road, etc." and whether the requirements under Article 4 (1) 6 of the same Act, which are the permission standard set forth in Article 4 (1) 6 of the same Act, are not satisfied.

Article 64(2) of the Road Act to install a charging station on the instant land and connect C requires permission from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the managing authority of C, and even if the Road Standards Rules (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 1, Mar. 23, 2013) do not separately provide for the detailed installation standards for the connection of charging station facilities, the change-speed lane shall be installed pursuant to Article 32(3) of the above Rules. However, if the Plaintiff’s installation of a change-speed lane and the permission to occupy and use the instant land are absolutely prohibited by other Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is not objectively impossible to realize it, considering that there is no change-speed lane at the time of the instant disposition and no permission to occupy and use the instant land, it is difficult to deem that the construction of the instant road is inappropriate in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff’s application for the permission to occupy and use the instant land is not appropriate, and there is no legal ground to view that the Plaintiff’s application for the permission to occupy and use the instant land is not suitable for the following reasons.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted with the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Jong-chul

Judge Meritorious;

2) Article 43 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 12(2) of the Rule on the Determination, Structure, and Installation Standards of Urban or Gun Planning Facilities provide that “Except as otherwise provided for in these Rules, the structure and installation of roads and auxiliary facilities shall be governed by the Rules on the Structure and Facility Standards of Roads.”