1. On June 29, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition not to grant approval for the registration of automobile management business against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the Automobile Management Business (hereinafter “instant application for registration”) with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”) on May 30, 2016, in order to run a comprehensive automobile maintenance business in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building with a total floor area of 495 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On June 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a provisional disposition rejecting the application for registration of this case on the ground that “The instant application for registration was rejected for the purpose of protecting the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment” in order to protect the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment, including the occurrence of a place of business, which is jointly filed by at least five persons related to the common interests of at least five households (Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act). (Article 72, Jun. 17, 2016)

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on December 26, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A. In light of the following circumstances, the instant disposition was a harsh disposition compelling the Plaintiff to make an excessive sacrifice compared to the needs of public interest, thereby deviating from and abusing discretion by losing balance and appropriateness.

① The instant place of business was located in an urban area on the land utilization plan, and was the first and second-class neighborhood living facilities, and was the automobile-related facilities (maintenance factory) from the Defendant on October 12, 2016.