소매인위치변경불가 처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a mutually beneficial convenience store called “D” at the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government B and C (hereinafter “instant store”).
The Plaintiff was designated as a tobacco retailer by the Defendant on November 2, 201, on the ground that the said place falls under Article 7-3(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Tobacco Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 595, Mar. 7, 2017; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Rule of the Tobacco Business Act”) (hereinafter referred to as “non-retail”) on the following grounds: (a) the distance between the retailer’s business offices is 30 meters and less than 50 meters, which is the standard for the designation of a general retailer; (b) the six or more floors of a building with a total floor area of at least 2,00 square meters.
B. In order to expand the instant store to subparagraph E of the same building (hereinafter “instant expanded store”), the Plaintiff acquired the instant extended store on August 31, 2018, and entered into a lease agreement with F. On October 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for change of the location of the retail store with “the same building C and E” in the same building C from the Defendant on October 30, 2018.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant application”). C.
The Defendant rejected the instant application on November 6, 2018, on the ground that the Rules on the Criteria, etc. for Designation of Retailers of Tobacco in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (Amended by the Rules No. 996, Apr. 26, 2019; hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City”) was amended to the effect that even if the business office is a non-retailer on October 17, 2014, if the building or facility is located on the first floor and an entrance is installed outside the building or facility, the standard for designation of a general retailer is complied with. Accordingly, the Defendant refused the instant application on the ground that the said place falls short of the distance (50 meters, which is the standard for designation of a general retailer) between retail stores as prescribed in the proviso to Article 4(2)
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). See the absence of dispute, entry in Gap’s 1 to 4, 7, and Eul’s 4, 5, and 6.