1. The Defendant’s revocation of permission against the Plaintiff on April 25, 2019 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

The defendant, a foundation established by the Ordinance on Support for Establishment and Operation of B, a foundation, entered into an agreement on the entrustment of management and operation of the building C (the name D before the modification; hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) which is administrative property under the Mapopo City Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Public Property Act”) around October 2015, and was entrusted with the management and operation of the building of this case from the Mapo City.

On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained a permit from the Defendant to use public property (hereinafter “instant permit”) with respect to the three-story of the instant building (hereinafter “instant store”) with respect to the period of use from May 4, 2017 to June 9, 2020, the Plaintiff operated a restaurant at the said store.

The Defendant added the conditions of permission (hereinafter “instant conditions of permission”) to the Plaintiff. Article 12(3) of the instant conditions of permission provides that “If the Plaintiff fails to operate a restaurant for at least three days without any special reason, the Defendant may revoke the permission of use.”

On April 25, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the instant permission for use on the ground that the Plaintiff did not operate a restaurant for at least three days at the instant store (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The defendant's assertion that Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, E's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings is about the defense of safety. Since the defendant subleases the building of this case, which is administrative property owned by Jongpo-si, to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 27 (5) of the Public Property Act, the permission of this case to the plaintiff constitutes a lease agreement under private law, and the disposition of this case constitutes the termination

Therefore, the instant disposition does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

Judgment

. Administrative property held by the office of administration of State property, etc.