logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.09.14 2017구합64798
재결취소
Text

1. The Defendant filed an administrative appeal claim between C and the head of Dongjak-gu on April 10, 2017.

Reasons

1. Details of ruling;

A. On October 31, 2016, the Plaintiffs: (a) obtained designation as a tobacco retailer from the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and operated “E store” on the first floor of the building located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “previous business establishment”); and (b) filed an application for the change of the location of a retailer’s business establishment with the head of Dongjak-gu Office on October 21, 2016, as the sublease period for the said business establishment is expected to expire on October 31, 2016.

B. Meanwhile, as the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the head of Dongjak-gu”) closes down its business, the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the head of Dongjak-gu”) set the period of public announcement October 21, 2016 from October 21, 2016 to October 28, 2016 (gold) and publicly announced the closure of tobacco retailers and the receipt of new designation. On October 28, 2016, C filed an application for designation of tobacco retailers with the fourth floor of the building D located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as its place of business.

C. In accordance with Article 8(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Tobacco Business Act, the head of Dongjak-gu received an application for change of the Plaintiff’s location on October 31, 2016, which was the date following the expiration date of the public notice period, and requested on November 1, 2016 to examine the eligibility for designation according to the application for designation as tobacco retailers to the head of the Korea Tobacco Sales Association, an incorporated association.

On November 3, 2016, the head of the Dongjak-gu Office received a reply with the content that the location of the business office of the plaintiffs is appropriate for the plaintiffs, and (2) in C, it was inappropriate to meet the 50m distance requirement between the tobacco retailer's business office and the previous business office of the plaintiffs, at a distance of 3m from the plaintiffs' previous business office and 21m.

E. On November 7, 2016, the head of Dongjak-gu, (i) approved the change of the location of a tobacco retailer’s business office (hereinafter “approval disposition”) to the Plaintiffs on November 8, 2016, following the public lottery procedure for the remaining applicants except C, and (ii) notified C of the change of designation of tobacco retailers (hereinafter “non-provisional disposition”) on November 9, 2016.

arrow