1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In around September 14, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired advertising towers installed in the building in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant advertising towers”) from Company B, and owned and managed the instant advertising towers from around September 14, 1999.

B. On February 24, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 3(3) of the former Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act (amended by Act No. 13726, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “Advertisements Act”) and Article 3(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27299, Jun. 30, 2016; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Advertising Act”) on the grounds that the instant advertising tower was installed on the bulletin facilities installed with permission for a certain period of time pursuant to attached Table 1, and that it did not obtain permission pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Advertising Act, which issued a corrective order to remove the instant advertising tower pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Advertising Advertisement Act, and urged the Defendant to impose a non-performance penalty on each of the following signboards pursuant to Article 10(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Advertising Advertisements, etc. Control Act (amended by Act No. 1375, Mar. 16, 2016, 2016.

C. Meanwhile, on May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to display a rooftop signboard with respect to the instant advertising tower from May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2019, including outdoor advertisements, for which the Plaintiff sought permission to display a rooftop signboard and permission to install a bulletin facility against the instant advertising tower.

However, on June 24, 2016, the Defendant rejected the deliberation of the Plaintiff on the grounds that “the legal basis for the training of the rooftop advertising tower without permission under the Advertising Act exists,” and rejected the Plaintiff’s application for permission for the permission of displaying outdoor advertisements, etc. below.