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

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap 1, 2, 4 through 6, and Eul 1:

A. On October 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) installed the facilities stipulated in Article 21 of the Food Sanitation Act in the place of the instant business in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, a general commercial area and district unit planning zone; and (b) applied for permission for the business of food service business (a dan) to the Defendant on November 9, 2005; and (c) applied for permission for business from the Defendant pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Food Sanitation Act and Articles 9 and 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “instant business permission”).

On November 21, 2005, after being registered as a singran business in the trade name of "B" at the place of business in this case, singran business has been running from around December 2005.

B. However, according to Article 52(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 52(1)4 of the Act on January 10, 2007 and Article 52(2)3 of the same Act as of August 25, 2005, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the instant business license as of January 25, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant business place is a general commercial area, but the instant business place is a district unit planning zone where the use limit for which no entertainment business is permitted on the whole floor of Class II neighborhood living facilities and amusement facilities is established, and thus, the instant business license was defective in its disposition as of January 25, 2007.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The instant plan is null and void.

The instant plan set a limitation on the use of the district unit planning zone including Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Dong, where the instant place of business belongs to, on the entire floor of all buildings, to allow permission to engage in danran business. However, it is located in the above Cdong Group together with 12 entertainment business establishments including the Plaintiff’s business establishments, and 435 entertainment business establishments, including 15 entertainment bar business establishments, and around the instant place of business, the instant place of business is called “marbing a so-called “marbing tree,” which constitutes a night,” and thus, the aforementioned restriction on use is null and void as it violates the Plaintiff’s freedom and equality of occupation, such as “the establishment of district unit planning to induce reasonable and systematic development, such as promotion of urban functions in neighboring areas, rationalization of land use, improvement of urban landscape, etc.” due to the Cheongcheoncheon Restoration Restoration Project. The purpose of the instant plan is merely a means that is not reasonable, and uniformly related to the discharge of the district unit planning zone, which uniformly infringes on the Plaintiff’s freedom of occupation and equality.

(2) Principles of deviation from discretion or protection of trust

Even if the plan of this case is valid because it does not infringe the plaintiff's occupational freedom and equal rights, it is located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office 35 entertainment business places, including 12 entertainment bar business places, including the plaintiff's business places, and 15 entertainment bar business places. The surrounding area of the business place of this case is called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the drinking tree tree' which constitutes the night , even if the defendant issued the plan of this case, 'it is necessary to establish the district unit plan to induce reasonable and systematic development, such as promotion of urban functions in surrounding areas, rationalization of land use, improvement of urban landscape, etc. It is not easy to achieve the purpose of the plan of this case, and it is believed that the plaintiff's bar business with the permission of this case obtained from the defendant of this case, was able to obtain the permission of this case, and the plaintiff did not know that the plan of this case was unlawful in light of the plaintiff's 0 years old business places and 0 days old business places and 0 days old business places and 0 days old business places or more.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related Acts and subordinate statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are that there is no dispute between the parties, or that the development of Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 6, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 9, Gap evidence 10, and 11 respectively, 1,2, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 13, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 3 through 5, and the whole purport of pleadings is added to the above facts, and it is not possible to recognize the above recognition in light of the plan for utilization of entertainment and sports facilities of 0,000 local residential facilities of 20,000 local residential facilities of 20,000 local residential facilities of 2,000,000 local residential facilities of 2,000,000 local residential facilities of 2,000,000,000 other than 2,000,000 local residential facilities of 2,000.

(3) On October 2005, the Plaintiff had no knowledge that the place of business of this case was unable to obtain permission to engage in danran business as a district unit planning zone pursuant to the instant plan, and had a facility under Article 21 of the Food Sanitation Act, and filed an application for permission to engage in danran business with the Defendant. The Plaintiff on November 2005.

9. The public officials who did not know the existence of the instant plan obtained the instant business license from the Defendant, and registered the business for the instant entertainment business from November 21, 2005 to November 21, 2005 with the trade name “B”, and from December 2005, Kran bar business has been conducted from around December 2005. (4) The Plaintiff maintained the soundness of the Plaintiff’s business, such as deposit for lease, premium, interior decoration, and installation of facilities, etc., for business in the instant place of business, approximately KRW 450,00,00,00 for expenses incurred in relation to the instant business. The Plaintiff’s business in the instant place of business is for most of 60 older persons, and the seat partitions is not installed.

(5) A total of 435 food service businesses, including 12 entertainment bar business establishments and 15 entertainment bar business establishments, are located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Group where the instant business place is located, and the surrounding area of the instant business place is well known as the so-called “marbing tree trees, which constitute the night.”

(6) Meanwhile, from November 2005 to around 1, 2005, the newspaper articles, including the district unit planning zone, that “pro-ro 2 and 3” began to be a newspaper article that is planned to be designated as “pro-ro, Cheongcheon Special Tourist Zone”. On March 22, 2006, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City enacted a plan to designate Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Dong Cdong, where the place of the business of this case belongs as “pro-ro, Cheongcheon Special Tourist Zone” in the luminous Building, including the district unit planning zone, to create the distance of young children as a representative sexual street, thereby enabling them to enter the area where they could enter the school with visitors.

D. Determination

(1) Whether the instant plan is invalid or not

The plan of this case based on Article 52 (1) 4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that the purpose of the plan of this case shall not be permitted for the second class neighborhood living facilities and all floors of amusement facilities in connection with the building use plan. The plan of this case, which is based on Article 52 (1) 4 of the first class district unit planning zone, shall be limited to the use of the plan of this case such as dan 2 and 3 in line with the purpose of the plan of this case such as cultural and assembly facilities, educational research and welfare facilities, books among first class and second class neighborhood living facilities, private teaching institutes, general restaurants, resting restaurants, daily necessities, etc. The plaintiff's assertion that this case's plan of this case is not consistent with the purpose of the plan of this case such as dan 1 and second class neighborhood living facilities and all floors of amusement facilities, such as succession and development of the above district unit planning zone due to public notice, the freedom of designation of the above district unit planning zone, the necessity of fostering the land use and the necessity of business operation, etc., can not be accepted in light of the plaintiff's legitimate purpose.

(2) Even if the principle of the deviation from discretion or the principle of the protection of trust is contrary to Article 52(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the plan of this case, if an administrative agency revokes a beneficial administrative disposition such as permission, license, authorization, patent, etc., it may be revoked only when it is compared with the needs of the public interest to be revoked and disadvantages such as infringement of the right to obtain benefits and the protection of trust and the stability of legal life to be suffered by the parties, and it is so strong that the public interest needs to be justified.

As seen in the foregoing facts, the Plaintiff believed that the instant business license was available by the Defendant, and all the Plaintiff and public officials in charge were unaware of the existence of the instant plan at the time of the instant business license. Pursuant to the instant business license, the Plaintiff made a enormous investment in the instant business place about KRW 450,00,00 in lease deposit, premium, interior decoration, and installation of facilities, etc., with respect to the instant entertainment business. At least one year after the instant business license was granted, the Plaintiff’s investment loss and business loss will be enormous if the Plaintiff did not run the instant business as a result of the instant disposition at least one year after the date of the instant business license, and the Plaintiff’s investment loss and business loss will be excessive. Since the Plaintiff’s investment in the instant business place, including the Plaintiff’s 12 entertainment bar business places, including the Plaintiff’s business places, and 15 entertainment business places, including the instant business places, are located within the scope of the instant business place, and thus, the Plaintiff’s investment in the instant business place should be more and more likely to be found to have violated the Plaintiff’s discretion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Choi Jong-chul

Judges Kim Jae-han

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.