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 April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the motor vehicle management business (motor vehicle scrapping business) with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”) pursuant to Article 53(1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act and Article 111(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act for the purpose of establishing a place of business with a lot size of 16,850 square meters and a building size of 1,968 square meters on land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On April 29, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the registration of the motor vehicle management business (motor vehicle scrapping business) is not possible on the ground that the C road abutting on the instant land (hereinafter “instant road”) is merely eight meters wide and thus does not meet the registration standards under Article 7 subparagraph 2 of the Ordinance on the Registration Standards for Motor Vehicle Management Business of Gyeongbuk-do (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of the fact that the Ordinance on the Registration Standards for Motor Vehicle Management Business of the majority of local governments only provides that “the access of a large-type vehicle shall not interfere with the access of a large-scale vehicle,” and does not separately regulate the width of the road, and that the Fair Trade Commission pointed out the restriction on competition of the ordinances that may result in the protection of existing business entities, Article 7 subparag. 2 of the instant Ordinance, which stipulates “the location of a place of business is adjacent to a road of not less than 10 meters, is unlawful as excessive regulation. 2) Even if Article 7 subparag. 2 of the instant Ordinance is lawful, it should be determined on the basis of the width on public register, not the road width.