장흥토요시장 사용허가 취소처분 취소 청구의 소
1. On February 13, 2017, the Defendant pertaining to the stores set forth in subparagraphs A and J-dong 1 and 2 against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 11, 2012, the Plaintiff is a person who, after obtaining from the Defendant, obtained approval for the transfer and acquisition of a store in the A market folklore No. J-dong 1 and 2 (hereinafter “each of the instant stores”), and obtained permission for the use of a market, and takes over each of the instant stores from her husband C from her husband C and engages in restaurant business under the name of “D”.
B. On February 10, 2017, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s permission to use the market for each of the instant stores pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Ordinance on the Management of the Market in Yeongi-gun, Yeongi-gun on the ground that “(i) the succession procedure defect, ② the transfer/acquisition (contract), ③ the user and the operator are different.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 9 of the Ordinance on the Operation and Management of the Market inYung-gun, the non-existence of the Reasons for Disposition provides that “The right to use the market shall not be sub-leased or transferred to any other person: Provided, That this shall not apply to the case where the spouse and his lineal descendants are inherited or succeeded to, with the prior approval of the head of Gun, and the Plaintiff acquired the store in this case from the spouse C with the prior approval of the Defendant, and there is no defect in the procedure of succession and no violation of the contract for the transfer and acquisition. Furthermore, E and F alleged by the Defendant as the actual operator are merely the Plaintiff’s attempt to operate the store in the Plaintiff’s city and city, and the actual operator is the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff in violation of the principle of trust has been operating the store in this case with the consent of the public official in charge of the instant case and with the permission of the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's cancellation of the permission for market use on the grounds of defects in the process of transfer is a violation of the principle of trust.
3. Each store of this case, which is abused from discretionary power, is supported by the plaintiff.