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 November 7, 2006, the Plaintiff was designated as a tobacco retailer by the Defendant as the place of business in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant marina”).

B. On January 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a business transfer agreement with D on the instant marina, and delivered the instant marina to D.

C. On July 17, 2017, the Defendant revoked the designation of a tobacco retailer against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 17(1)5 of the Tobacco Business Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not engage in tobacco sales business for at least 60 days without reporting the closure or suspension of business.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Eul’s evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant marina was transferred to D on January 1, 2017, but only the part of the tobacco sales place of the instant marina, and continued to sell tobacco at an existing place. As such, the Plaintiff did not engage in tobacco sales business for at least 60 days without reporting the closure of business or the suspension of business. Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful since the Plaintiff did not engage in tobacco sales business without reporting the closure of business or the suspension of business.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer and takeover of the instant marina business with D around January 1, 2017, and delivered the instant marina to D, as seen earlier, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff did not report the closure or suspension of business to the Defendant, and further, considering the overall purport of the pleadings and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 as a whole, the Plaintiff did not operate the tobacco sales business for 60 days or more without filing a report on the closure or suspension of business. Thus, the Defendant’s grounds are the same.