(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.25.선고 2019누39576 판결

The Defendant’s recommendation to the Plaintiff on March 28, 2018 is revoked the three-year extension recommendation for the 3-year extension recommendation for the Seoul Geumcheon- Point.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiff is engaged in sales of interior goods, construction materials, tools, etc. as a large enterprise defined in Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Promotion of Collaborative Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the "Mutual Cooperation Act"). The Intervenor joining the Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the " Intervenor") is a small and medium enterprise group defined in Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Collaborative Cooperation Act, and approximately 179 small and medium enterprise owners E, an industrial re-sale complex located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, as a member of the Intervenor.

B. Opening point of the instant store

1) From around 2013, F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”), the representative company of the large group of companies to which the Plaintiff belongs, promoted the Home Trop promist 2. As a part of the project, it was difficult to set up a plan to open a major retail store selling interior products, construction materials, tools, etc. in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G (hereinafter referred to as “instant site”) around March 2018.

2) On January 16, 2018, F entered into a contract with H companies and companies (hereinafter “U.S. J”) and Korea (“J”) under which the right to engage in the business of selling interior goods, construction materials, tools, etc. (hereinafter “instant business”) is granted the right to engage in the business of selling interior goods, construction materials, tools, etc. (hereinafter “instant business”) and to pay 50,00 U.S. dollars annual royalty in return therefor.

3) Pursuant to the above contract, F set the name of a serious retail store to be opened to the instant site as “C Seoul Geumcheon store (hereinafter “instant store”).”

4) On February 28, 2018, the Plaintiff acquired rights, obligations, assets, etc. related to the instant business, including the instant store from F, and paid, in return, the F, the amount of net assets (i.e., net assets (i., assets - liabilities) transferred to F, 1,464,536,190 won, and the amount of adjustment calculated by reflecting changes in assets thereafter. The Plaintiff paid KRW 3.2 billion to F, including the net asset acquisition price and the amount of adjustment.

5) Around March 2018, the opening of the instant store was completed, and the store size of the instant store is 1,765 meters.

C. On November 28, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for business coordination with the Intervenor and the instant disposition of recommending the postponement of the store opening. On November 28, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for business coordination with the Defendant via the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business via the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Collaborative Cooperation and Cooperation Act, asserting that Emer

2) On December 6, 2017, the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business presented an opinion that if the store in this case is opened to the defendant on December 6, 2017, small enterprises will be expected to suffer considerable damage from E market price.

3) From December 27, 2017 to February 9, 2018, F and the Intervenor conducted self-resolution consultation on a total of six occasions. The objective of the opening of the instant store was to create a new market, not the infringement of the right to the table of small and medium enterprises, by E, and the expected sales of the instant store are only about KRW 50 million average monthly sales for 2 to 3 years after opening, and KRW 70 million average monthly sales for the instant store, and it was explained that the display space was reduced and the handling price offered by the Intervenor would not be treated as KRW 91 out of the brand 231. However, the Intervenor failed to comply with the instant proposal by asserting the withdrawal of the opening of the instant store, and eventually, the self-resolution consultation was concluded.

4) The Defendant: (a) requested the Small and Medium Enterprise Research Institute to investigate the damage suffered by E in the event that the instant store is opened; (b) the Small and Medium Enterprise Research Institute conducted a survey from February 9, 2018 to March 20, and from March 14, 2018 to the 20th of the same month; (c) and (d) the Defendant, if the instant store is opened, the monthly average sales of E in the amount of KRW 7.85 billion from around 76.6 billion to around KRW 6.6 billion (i.e., KRW 7., KRW 76.6 billion - KRW 8.75 billion from the average sales of E in the amount of damage).

5) On March 28, 2018, the Small and Medium Enterprise Business Coordination Council (hereinafter referred to as the “Council”) held on March 28, 2018 decided that it is necessary to postpone the opening point of the instant store for three years. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff on the same day that it recommended the postponement of three years of the instant store pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Collaborative Cooperation Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, 12 through 14, 34 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, 10, Eul evidence 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main defense of the Defendant and the Intervenor

A. Summary of this defense

If an act by an administrative agency does not cause a direct change in the legal status of the other party, such act does not constitute a disposition that is subject to appeal litigation. The instant disposition is an interim disposition prior to a final disposition, which is a non-power and factual action, and only has a recommendation effect as it constitutes a non-power and factual action, and does not directly change the legal status of the plaintiff, and thus does not constitute a disposition that is subject to appeal litigation

B. Relevant legal principles

The issue of whether a certain act of an administrative agency can be the subject of an appeal cannot be determined abstractly and generally. In specific cases, an administrative disposition is an enforcement of law with regard to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency as the subject of public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. The decision should be made individually by taking into account the content and purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, the content, form and procedure of the act, the actual relation between the act and the disadvantage suffered by interested parties, such as the other party, and the principle of administration by the rule of law, and the attitude of the administrative agency and interested parties related to the pertinent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du167, Nov. 18, 2010)

Article 33(3) of the Collaborative Cooperation Act provides that "where the defendant is a large enterprise which has received a recommendation for postponement of the opening point under paragraph (1) and is not in compliance with it, the large enterprise may publish its subject matters, contents, etc." The main sentence of paragraph (4) provides that "where the defendant fails to comply with the recommendation without any justifiable reason after the publication under paragraph (3)." Article 41(2) provides that "a person who fails to comply with the order under Article 33(4) shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding 150 million won." As such, if the large enterprise fails to comply with the order even after it has received a recommendation for postponement of the opening point under Article 33(1) of the Collaborative Cooperation Act from the defendant, the large enterprise is placed in an unstable position for publication, implementation, criminal punishment, and unstable status, and thus, the defendant may not be able to resolve any dispute over the legality of the recommendation to the party at the opening point in the stage of postponement of the recommendation in question in accordance with the law.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

A) In order for the relevant administrative agency to take a measure of recommending the postponement of the opening under Article 33(1) of the Collaborative Cooperation and Cooperation Act, the requirement that “the demand for goods or services supplied by a large number of small and medium enterprises shall be reduced so as to significantly affect or threaten to affect the management safety of small and medium enterprises” (hereinafter referred to as “satisfyness requirement”). However, even if the Plaintiff opens the instant store, E does not have any possibility of significantly affecting or threatening to adversely affect the management safety of small and medium enterprises.

B) Regarding deviation from and abuse of discretionary power

Even if it is assumed that an apparent requirements for gender are satisfied, it is against the principle of proportionality that the Defendant, even though there exists a less indivative alternative means, did not consider this, and instead took extreme measures to prohibit business operations for three years. In addition, the Defendant merely imposed restrictions on business methods on other large enterprises in similar cases, and did not take measures to prohibit business operations themselves for a long time as in the instant case, and thus, the instant disposition also violates the principle of equality.

In this case, the instant disposition deviates from and abused discretionary power.

2) Summary of the assertion by the Defendant and the Intervenor

A) Regarding the grounds for the disposition

(1) A significant requirement is a requirement for business coordination application under Article 32(1) of the Collaborative Cooperation Act, but does not meet the requirements for a measure of recommendation for postponement of the opening under Article 33(1). Since an application for business coordination and a measure of recommendation for postponement of the opening is a separate procedure that generates different effects, only “the need to secure the opportunity for business activities of the relevant type of small and medium enterprises” under Article 33(1) of the Collaborative Cooperation Act is

(2) Even if the apparent requirements of feasibility correspond to the requirements of the disposition of recommending the postponement of the opening under Article 33(1) of the Collaborative Cooperation Act, in light of the fact that the purpose and purpose of the Collaborative Cooperation Act are to guarantee the right to survival of small and medium enterprises, the disposition of recommending the opening of a opening shall be interpreted as a beneficial administrative act, and its requirement should be mitigated. In such judgment, a wide range of discretion should be recognized to the Small and Medium Enterprise Business Coordination Council comprised of experts. In this case, considering the following factors comprehensively, the response of small and medium enterprises and consumers among E on the opening of the instant store, the difference in the competitive ability presented by the large and medium enterprises, and the sales of E commercial after the opening of the instant store, the apparent requirement should be considered to have been satisfied.

B) Regarding deviation from and abuse of discretionary power

① In order to prevent enormous damage to E stores due to the opening of the instant store, at least three years’ recommendation for postponement was inevitable. ② Total assets of F, the representative company of the Plaintiff’s large enterprise group, exceed 5:340 billion won, making it difficult to deem that Plaintiff’s management difficult even if the opening point of the instant store was extended by three years. On the other hand, if E stores are opened, there is a sudden decrease in sales of small and medium enterprises and the possibility of affecting their livelihood. ③ Even if the opening point of the instant store was extended by three years, it cannot be concluded that the contract with J company of the United States is terminated even if the said contract was terminated, and even if the said opening point was terminated, it is only impossible to conclude that the Plaintiff would incur any particular loss to the Plaintiff. ④ Even if the Plaintiff’s damage was incurred due to the postponement of the opening of the instant store, this is not sufficiently reviewed the possibility of extending the opening of the store under the Collaborative Cooperation Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the Plaintiff’s major case of this case’s recommendation and disposal differs from the Plaintiff’s own discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

1) If the store in this case is opened to the Defendant, E-Ga Small and Medium Enterprises will open the store.

I suggested opinions that considerable damage will be expected to be suffered, and the main contents are as follows.

(1) Competition between large enterprises and small-medium enterprises in the field of distribution may be resolved to simply make every effort.

안이 아는 자본, 규모 등의 구조적 문제로 대기업에 대한 진출제한이나 일정 규제를 적용하는 것 외에는 대기업과 중소기업간 상생이 어려울 것으로 보인다.② 산업용재 판매업종의 특성상 또, 소매점간의 경쟁은 제품의 질 차이가 크지 않은 상태에서 마케팅 할인, 특가 등을 통한 경쟁만 가능하며, 이는 중소기업보다 대규모 자본을 보유한 대기업이 압도적으로 유리하다. 상대적으로 신중하게 제품을 구매하고 원하는 제품을 저렴하게 구매하기 위해 긴 이동거리도 감수하는 편인 산업용재 소비행태의 특성상이 사건 점포의 입점은 중소기업들에게 부정적인 영향을 미칠 것으로 예상된다.€ 이 사건 부지는 금천구 내에서 유동인구가 가장 많은 대표상권이고 그 뒤편으로는 주기지역이 구성되어 있으며, 일때의 공장과도 가까워 평일과 주말 모두 유동인구가 상당할것으로 보이는 반면, 상가 일대는 서울과 안양 경계에 위치해 있고, 0 외에 주요 소매매점 등 고객집객효과가 있는 큰 시설이 없어 산업용재 제품을 구매하기 위해 찾는 고객외에 다른 목적으로 찾는 고객이 드문 편이다.(④) 상가 중소기업들은 이 사건 점포의 입점에 대해 매우 부정적이며, 입점 이후 1년 이내경영상황이 심각하게 악화될 것으로 예상하고 있다.() E상가 중소기업들의 의견을 반영하여 입점제한 1.6%)을 고려할 수 있으나, 상황에 따른특가판매 제한 품목제한을 비롯하여 마케팅 지원, 기타 상생사업 마련 등 다양한 수단을고려하여야 한다.

2) The Small and Medium Enterprise Research Institute predicted, as a result of a total of two occasions, that if the store of this case opens, EM would incur considerable damage to EM, and its main contents are as follows.

0 In the case of damage to micro enterprises due to the entry into the large enterprise distribution center, around the market location of large distribution enterprises, the average 30% of the sales reduction and the number of customers reduction have been achieved, and in particular, in the large city, the decrease rate has been high. In addition, in the type of business, entry into the distribution company related to industrial products and electronic home appliances has been the largest damage to micro enterprises.In view of regional characteristics, store form, type of business, etc., it is determined that the impact on the commercial building in the site of this case on the opening of the store of this case on the site of this case is not significant.

② On June 2010, K Co., Ltd., a large enterprise, operated 1 Incheon retail store with 1,300 square meters of store size on the Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon. In the case of Japan, the new center, which is an industrial complex, is located in the vicinity.0) since the emergence of the home center, such as the instant store, 37,278, and 199, the number of miscellaneous stores reduced almost half of 20 years from 1977, 197, 500, 627 to 207, 1982, 207, 1500 to 28,282.4% of the average sales amount of 50,000,000 stores, 54% or more of the store sales amount, 54% of the store sales amount, 54% or more of the store sales amount, 54% of the store sales amount of 70,000,000.

3) Since the opening point of the instant store, the monthly average sales of the instant store amounting to approximately KRW 270 million. Based on the tax accountant’s data, compared the sales from June 2017 to October 2017 by E from June 2018, which was after the opening point of the instant store, to October 2018, the aggregate sales amount of KRW 14,860,615,279, which was KRW 250,465,350 ( approximately 14.4%) was reduced from KRW 17,365,268,779 to KRW 14,860,615,279 to KRW 250,465,350 ( approximately 14.4%).

4) P, a member of the instant deliberative council, was present in this court as a witness at the time of the instant deliberative council’s resolution, and was aware of the members of the instant deliberative council as to the fact that the instant store was opened prior to the opening of the instant deliberative council’s resolution, and the presumption of damage amount was not an important factor in the determination of the instant deliberative council. The instant deliberative council only used as reference material, and considered whether the instant deliberative council is within the business district impact, ② whether the instant deliberative council is within the business district impact, and ② whether the consumer floor overlap. Considering the two factors comprehensively, the instant deliberative council made a decision that the instant disposition was appropriate on the ground that the opening point of the instant store was likely to have an adverse impact on the business owners located in E commercial and commercial.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 14, 22, 23, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 12, Eul's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether there is a ground for disposition

A) Whether an obvious fact-finding requirement is a requirement for a disposition that extends beyond the scope of the requirements

(1) Article 33(1) of the Collaborative Cooperation and Cooperation Act provides that "the defendant may, upon receipt of an application for business coordination under Article 32, recommend the relevant large enterprise, etc. to postpone the acquisition, commencement, or expansion of its business for a specified period not exceeding three years, subject to deliberation by the Coordination Council." However, Article 32(1) of the Collaborative Cooperation and Cooperation Act provides that "the small and medium enterprise's organization may apply for business coordination to the defendant via the Federation of Korea, if it is deemed that a large number of small and medium enterprises have significantly adverse effects on their business stability by reducing their demand for goods or services supplied by a large number of small and medium enterprises due to the acquisition, commencement, or expansion of their business."

(2) ① The application for business coordination under Article 32(1) of the Collaborative Cooperation Act and the recommendation for postponement of the opening of Article 33(1) are a series of procedures for business coordination under the Collaborative Cooperation Act, so it cannot be deemed that the requirements for each stage are different. ② The “necessary to secure business opportunities for a small and medium enterprise in the pertinent type of business” refers to the need to protect a small and medium enterprise as a result of a decrease in demand for goods or services supplied by a large number of small and medium enterprises, which significantly adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the management stability of a small and medium enterprise, and thus, the two cannot be viewed as a separate requirement. In full view of the fact that the two cannot be seen as a separate requirement, it

B) Whether the instant disposition satisfies the apparent requirements at the time of the instant disposition

(1) In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the determination of illegality of the disposition ought to be made at the time of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du10883, Apr. 15, 2005). Meanwhile, administrative laws and regulations, which serve as the basis of an sediment administrative disposition, shall be strictly construed and applied, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the other party to the administrative disposition. The teleological interpretation that takes into account the legislative intent, purpose, etc. of the administrative disposition shall not be entirely excluded, but such interpretation shall not go beyond the ordinary meaning of the language and text (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du13791, 1380

The economic order in our Constitution is based on the principle of free competition. The freedom of occupation includes the freedom of business and the freedom of enterprises, and anyone can freely participate in competition on the basis of such freedom of business and the freedom of enterprises: Provided, That Article 119(2) of the Constitution provides that "The State may regulate and coordinate the economy for the prevention of market control and abuse of economic power and the democratization of the economy through harmony between economic entities" and allow the State to intervene in the economy within necessary limits.

However, the State’s intervention is limited to the extent necessary to guarantee economic activities of the people, maintain the function of the market in a normal condition, and protect the community. As such, regulation and coordination on the distribution market should not be infringed, to the extent consistent with the freedom of business and enterprise guaranteed by the Constitution. The opening of a major retail store such as the store in this case has an aspect of promoting consumption, improving the quality of life, and contributing to the advancement of the distribution industry, such as providing new shopping culture to modern consumers and lowering the supply cost through the improvement of distribution process. Furthermore, it should be determined that a micro enterprise whose major customers are consumers, including, but not limited to, the increase in the number of small and medium enterprises operating in a major retail store or opening in a nearby retail store to protect the community, bringing about the effects of promoting the competition and creating jobs by employing workers, and ultimately contributing to the enhancement of national competitiveness by bringing about a decrease in the number of sales revenue. Therefore, the Defendant’s recommendation to reduce the supply price of small and medium enterprises for an objective and reasonable period of time, including the reduction of the supply price of small and medium enterprises.

(2) In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, namely, ① entry into the market of a large enterprise into the market in the light of the characteristics of the industrial re-sale and distribution business, and ② the store in this case may have a negative impact on the business safety of small and medium enterprises, ② the store in this case may have a business district partially overlap due to the characteristics of the industrial materials purchased by using the vehicle, ③ the store in this case and the item handled by E in this case may overlap with some of the items handled by the vehicle, ③ the store in this case may have a double floor. ④ Since the store in this case was opened at the time of the disposition in this case, it is difficult to accurately calculate the estimated amount of damages because the store in this case was opened, ⑤ the determination of the apparent requirements require special expertise, and thus, it can be said that the council in this case has a relatively wide discretion, and ② the sales of some E companies after the opening of the store in this case has decreased by 14% after the opening of the store in this case, it is acceptable to the part of the intervenor in this case.

(3) However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged earlier and the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 6, and 13 together with the overall purport of pleadings, the defendant's findings of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business and the Small and Medium Business Research Institute and the contents of deliberation by the Council of this case based on the disposition of this case are insufficient to be objectively and reasonably used to determine whether the contents of the decision of this case are able to satisfy an apparent requirement, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the defendant satisfies an apparent requirement at the time of the disposition of this case. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is reasonable. (i) In other words, the plaintiff's disposition of this case constitutes an indive administrative disposition that restricts the freedom of business, etc. of the same conglomerate as the plaintiff, and thus, it must be strictly interpreted. (v) In particular, pursuant to Article 33 (1) of the Collaborative Cooperation Act, the defendant can recommend large enterprises, etc. to reduce the production volume, production quantity, production facilities, etc. of produced products, and in fact, small and medium enterprises can be interpreted to the maximum extent that it satisfies the three years.

(2) The Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business: (a) based on the characteristics of the distribution sector and the business sector selling industrial goods; (b) the geographical characteristics of the instant site; and (c) the statements made by 63 small and medium enterprises located in the E market, etc., it was anticipated that the E market will suffer considerable damage if the instant store is opened.

However, it is difficult to readily conclude that E-mails are interested parties in the application for business coordination and their statements are objectivity, and the analysis is mainly based on general abstract contents, not on the individual and specific contents of the instant store. It is insufficient to view that this is not enough to satisfy the apparent requirements.

③ If the store of this case is opened, the Small and Medium Business Research Institute estimated that E’s monthly average sales from around 76.6 billion won to around 67.6 billion won (i.e., KRW 76.6 billion - KRW 8.750 million in damages). The result of the survey on E’s visitors to a small and medium enterprise and the store was the main basis for the above determination. However, as seen earlier, it is difficult for E’s small and medium enterprises to deem that E’s statements as interested parties to the application for business coordination have objectivity. Moreover, the Small and Medium Business Research Institute concluded that E’s aforementioned intent to use the store of this case would no longer be sufficient to conclude that E’s aforementioned intent would not be used by the consumers, on the ground that E’s stores are “Ne’s desire to use the store of this case?”

① Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments, evidence Nos. 22 and 23 revealed that the monthly average sales of the instant store after the opening point of the instant store was approximately KRW 270 million. According to the evidence Nos. 12, the Defendant and the Intervenor’s assertion, even if the sales of the instant store are assumed to be immediately connected to the damage of the E, the damage suffered by E upper and upper parties due to the opening point of the instant store is about KRW 270 million on the average monthly average. In light of the fact that the damage suffered by E upper and upper parties due to the opening point of the instant store was merely about KRW 270 million on the average monthly average, the number of damages suffered by E upper and upper parties was KRW 8750,000,000,000 on the average monthly sales of the instant store, it is difficult to readily conclude that there was a decrease in credibility between E upper and upper parties’ sales since the opening of the instant store, as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no difference between E upper and upper parties’s sales.

As the Defendant and the Intervenor asserted, even if the circumstances can be acknowledged that E market price due to the opening of the instant store is difficult to accurately compute the estimated amount of damage caused by small and medium enterprises, the instant deliberation council, as a key indicator in determining whether the amount of damage caused by the sale satisfies the requirements of substantialness, should have tried to compute the estimated amount within the reasonable and acceptable range. However, according to the testimony of the witness P of the party hearing, the instant deliberation council, even though it was considered as reference material even though it was aware that the estimated amount of damage was excessive, and thus, it is difficult to believe that the resolution of the deliberation council of this case based on objective and reasonable evidence.

⑤ Since the instant store and M store are almost similar in the form of business, even if some differences are made in the items to be handled and geographical conditions, the Small and Medium Enterprise Research Institute ought to have been subject to the most important investigation to determine whether the sales of small and medium enterprises have decreased in the N Center located in the vicinity after the opening of the Incheon store. Nevertheless, the Small and Medium Enterprise Research Institute did not properly examine whether the sales of small and medium enterprises located in the N Center located in the neighboring area after the opening of the Incheon store have decreased in the number of products to be handled and its geographical conditions. In light of the fact that the monthly average sales of approximately KRW 70,500,000,000 in the store area and the monthly sales of the M store are only about KRW 1.25,50,000,000 in the size of the store in this case compared to the store in this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the sales of the instant store in this case is expected to be an average of KRW 70,000,000 in the middle and long term.

(6) The guidelines for the implementation of the business coordination system of the company-type market provides that the scope of significant damage shall not exceed 500 meters in the radius around the planned location of the store located in the first (300 meters) and second (500 meters) business district due to the acquisition, commencement, or expansion of the business by large enterprises, etc., and that the scope of significant damage shall be within 500 meters in the radius around the planned location of the store located in the first (300 meters) and the second (500 meters) business district due to the characteristics of the business district shall be included in cases where objective damage is recognized. In the Enforcement Rule of the Distribution Industry Development Act [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act concerning the scope of business impact analysis when preparing a business district impact assessment, it is difficult to readily conclude that the size of the store falls under 30 meters in the radius of the establishment area, 500 meters in the radius of the opening area in the case of a quasi-large store with a size of 330 square meters or more, and that the size of this case constitutes 1616 square meters.

7) The main reasons for determining that the instant deliberation council overlaps with the instant store and E’s consumer floor of small and medium enterprises are that the instant store and E’s major items handled by small and medium enterprises overlap with about 84% as a result of the research conducted by the Small and Medium Enterprise Research Institute. However, according to the written evidence No. 2-1, No. 2-1, No. 4, and No. 5, E’s survey on E’s major items are very comprehensive, and thus, E’s analysis on the items handled are highly likely to overlap, and most items in fact overlap with 10%. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the said survey alone satisfied the requirements of substantial gender.

(8) With the opening point of the instant store, consumers who did not have any particular interest in improving their living space by purchasing interior goods, construction materials, tools, etc. with the opening point of the instant store, or who did not feel the need to visit Geumcheon-gu Seoul for the purchase of interior goods, construction materials, tools, etc., are likely to expand the wholesale and retail market of Geumcheon-gu Seoul in visiting the instant store or E commercial zone. Nevertheless, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business and Small Business Research Institute of Small and Medium Business and the Deliberation Council of the instant case reviewed the above aspect in depth, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently.

2) Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to have satisfied the apparent requirements, and there is no ground for the disposition. Therefore, it should be revoked in an unlawful manner without any further determination as to whether or not it deviates from or abused the discretionary power.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the grounds of its merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge, the Korea Judge Judge;

Judges Dokwon Line

Judges Sung-ju

Note tin

1) Under the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises, the term "small and medium enterprises" is used as "small and medium enterprises", and the term "small and medium enterprises"

The term "small and medium enterprise" is used. The term "small and medium enterprise" is referred to as "small and medium enterprise when the shop occupants are named in E commercial prices."

the term "the term" shall be used.

2) The term “ Home Management” is owned by an individual or organization that owns or operates a residential space.

change and convenience on their own in order to make the facility more convenient and useful in a more convenient space.

agency means all active activities to promote gender.

3) Even if the Defendant and the Intervenor’s assertion, it appears that the requirement of distinguishedness is not the requirement of the disposition of recommending postponement of opening.

even if it is not likely that the management stability of a small and medium enterprise would significantly affect or threaten to affect it,

The three-year recommendation for postponement of opening is a violation of the principle of proportionality and is a deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

Inasmuch as the requirement of substantial rectification is the requirement of a disposition to recommend the postponement of the opening of a new location, it may not be denied.

The essence of determining the lawfulness of the instant disposition, regardless of whether an apparent requirement has been satisfied

Since it is a proper standard, it is a particular room for dispute as to whether the requirements of the recommendation for postponement are the requirements of the recommendation for postponement.

There is no interest in it.

4) In determining whether substantial requirements are satisfied, ① Small and Medium Enterprises located in the vicinity of a serious retail store

The sales of each individual product by enterprises, and ② the opening of a serious retail store is located in the vicinity;

(3) If the sales of each product of the small enterprises are expected to be reduced to a certain extent, a material retail store

4. Whether there is no significant change in the ratio of decrease in sales, even upon receipt of the proposal for mediation presented by the interpreter

less than postponements, i.e., recommendation for reduction of product items, quantity of production, production facilities, etc.;

(1) Whether there is no room to promote both the interests of the founders of major retail stores and of consumers and small and medium enterprises;

(1) may take such action.

5) Accordingly, the Defendant’s Collaborative Cooperation Act is to prevent damage and ensure the stability of management of small and medium enterprises.

(1) The measures to recommend the postponement of the opening of the plan under Paragraph (1) of Article 33 shall be the beneficial administration of the small and medium enterprises.

The argument to the effect that an act constitutes an act and must be interpreted as equitable, but this opinion

The other party to the instant disposition is whether the instant disposition as the Plaintiff is an infringed administrative act. The other party to the disposition

The defendant's assertion on this part is without merit, since it should be determined based on the plaintiff who is the plaintiff.

6) Considering that there has not been a long time after the opening of the instant store, the store of this case in the future is located.

A monthly average sales of approximately 32 times more than the present, causing an average of at least 8.75 billion won per month;

It does not seem that it does not appear.

7) According to Article 2 subparagraph 3 (c) of the Distribution Industry Development Act, the total area of a store is 3,000 square meters.

shall be normal.