2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the establishment of a pharmacy (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant on the fourth 401m2 (No. 31.31m31m2 (hereinafter “instant pharmacy application site”) among the buildings on the ground B (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On December 24, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the establishment of the instant pharmacy is not registered (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant pharmacy constitutes “cases where there is a passage between the medical institution and the pharmacy, such as an exclusive corridor, stairs, elevator or a footbridge,” under Article 20(5)4 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission for the revocation of the instant disposition, and on April 12, 2016, the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was an exclusive corridor between the medical institution on the fourth floor of the instant building and the instant pharmacy cannot be deemed to have been installed.

The instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

The instant building is an aggregate building in which various types of business, such as sales facilities, business facilities, and neighborhood living facilities, are operated respectively, rather than a specialized building in medical services, and the fourth floor of the instant building is used not only by medical institutions, but also by the D Senior Technical Center (hereinafter “D Senior Technical Center”).

On September 18, 2015, a store of 401 square meters (91.44 square meters) of the instant building was divided into 401 square meters (31.31 square meters) and 406 square meters (60.13 square meters) of the instant building (hereinafter “instant division”). The instant division was conducted irrespective of the Plaintiff.

The chief reporter shop of this case is located.