The defendant's rejection disposition of the application for deliberation of outdoor advertisements against the plaintiff on November 18, 2019 shall be revoked.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 25, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained permission to display outdoor advertisements (from February 23, 2011 to January 31, 2014 during the display period) on one rooftop signboard (18m x 9m) on the building located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant, with respect to the installation of one rooftop signboard (from February 23, 2011 to January 31, 201). On January 23, 2014, the Plaintiff changed the size of the instant rooftop signboard to 18m x 5m until January 31, 2017; and on February 20, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained each permission to extend the display period until January 31, 2020.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant rooftop signboard” and the permission of the last extension is “instant permission”. B.

On October 31, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for deliberation by the Outdoor Advertising Deliberation Committee (hereinafter “instant application for deliberation”) to the Defendant on October 31, 2019 to obtain permission to change the instant rooftop signboard to a signboard using the wall (15m x 8.5m). However, the Defendant rejected the instant application for deliberation on November 18, 2019 on the ground that “the permission to change the advertisements already installed” was not granted.

(hereinafter “instant No. 1 Disposition”). (c)

Around January 2020, the Plaintiff applied for extension of the display period of the instant permission to the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for extension on January 28, 2020 on the ground that “the absence of advertising materials (rooftop signboards) subject to extension of display period”, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 2”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 11, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion No. 1 of this case is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion as well as the absence of legal grounds.

In other words, the defendant, even though the outdoor advertisements subject to the application of this case were subject to deliberation by the Outdoor Advertising Deliberation Committee under the relevant laws and regulations, rejected the application itself without justifiable grounds, and did the above disposition without any reasonable grounds even though all the statutory standards for the installation of outdoor advertisements are satisfied.

(b).