beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the Plaintiff A’s claim shall be dismissed.
2. All claims filed by Plaintiffs B and C.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The size of a business site located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is 153,067 square meters, 98,983 square meters of store size, 3,701 total number of stores, F (a abbreviation: G store; hereinafter “instant commercial building”) is a superstore subject to the application of the Distribution Industry Development Act.
B. On October 22, 2008, the Intervenor of the Defendant Litigation established for the purpose of market management business, etc. (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) filed a report with the Defendant to change the superstore manager of the instant commercial building from the existing H association to the Intervenor pursuant to Article 12(2) and (3) of the former Distribution Industry Development Act (amended by Act No. 9242, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the “instant consent”). The Defendant filed a report to change the superstore manager of the instant commercial building from the existing H association to the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant report”).
C. On October 29, 2008, HA filed a petition with the Defendant on October 29, 2008 stating that the number of 298 persons among the shop occupants of the instant commercial building would withdraw the Intervenor’s consent to the report on the change of the superstore manager (hereinafter “instant withdrawal”) and requesting the Intervenor to verify the facts, such as the authenticity related to the instant written consent submitted by the Intervenor.
On November 10, 2008, the Defendant deemed that the Intervenor met the requirements for consent of at least 2/3 of the shop occupants under Article 12(2) of the former Distribution Industry Development Act, which is the requirement for reporting the change of a superstore manager: Provided, That whether the Defendant determined whether the requirements for consent of at least 2/3 of the shop occupants at the time of the instant disposition are met based on the number of the shop occupants at the time of the disposition, is not clearly verified in the record, but the Defendant determined whether the requirements for consent are satisfied based on the number of the shop occupants in light of the details stated in the evidence 15-2