1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission for a liquefied petroleum gas filling business with the trade name “E”, wherein the Plaintiff combines two parcels of land C, 3,206 square meters of land C, and D, 370 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) into the place of business application.

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On October 1, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the above application for permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff for the following reasons:

Of the filling facilities for liquefied petroleum gas, the filling facilities shall be maintained from the outer surface to the boundary of the place of business. The F&Do of the land at the boundary of the place of business is an actual forest and not more than 5m from the outer surface of the filling facilities of D (K), the site for the application for permission, to the F/L land located within the boundary of the place of business, according to the drawing of the application for permission. [Recognition-based] The absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2-2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the land category of F, which is the boundary between the Plaintiff’s assertion and the instant land, is a legal surface that is a part of a road, the instant project application site constitutes a case where the boundary of a place of business is adjacent to the road.

Therefore, even though the end of the opposite part of the road that was sent to F land pursuant to the Enforcement Rule of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act (hereinafter “ Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act”) is considered as the boundary of the business place pursuant to Article 1(1)(c) of the Enforcement Rule of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act, the Defendant’s act of disposing of this case on the ground that the distance from F land of this case is less than five meters and that the distance from the land of this case is inappropriate

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In the business plan submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant application, the charging facility is to be installed near the center of the boundary of the land C and D. F. from the point of installation.