1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 28, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant to display an outdoor advertisement with the content of the advertisement “at least 50% of the public interest advertisement, at least 50% of the commercial advertisement, at least 50% of the commercial advertisement,” and the display period “from February 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018.”

B. On March 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the extension of display of the instant advertisement, and the Defendant rejected the application on April 10, 2018 for the following reasons.

(hereinafter “Prior Disposition”) A.

Pursuant to subparagraph (c) and (d) of the Addenda of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice on Designation and Display Restriction of Outdoor Advertisements (No. 2013-81), the advertisements in this case are advertisements that can be displayed only by the fifth day ( March 31, 2018), from the enforcement date of the above public notice (No. 1, 2013) (No. 31, 2018).

B. The display and installation place of the instant advertisement is no longer located in a general residential area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act where the installation of rooftop advertisements is prohibited pursuant to Articles 15 and 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management of Outdoor Advertisements, etc. and Promotion of Outdoor Advertisement Industry.

C. On June 29, 2018, the Defendant issued a corrective order to remove the instant advertisements by July 14, 2018 pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Act on the Management of Outdoor Advertisements, etc. and Promotion of Outdoor Advertisement Industry (hereinafter “Outdoor Advertisement Act”) to the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff continuously operated the instant advertisements (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, and the purport of all entries and arguments in Gap's Nos. 1, 2, and 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion has the following defects in the prior disposition of this case, and the disposition of this case succeeds to the defects of the prior disposition of this case.