1. On December 10, 2012, the Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff is revoked.

Details of the disposition

A. On September 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to charge liquefied petroleum gas (hereinafter “instant application for permission”) with the Defendant on September 13, 2012, in order to operate a business of filling liquefied petroleum gas containers, etc. on the land outside 440-3 and 4 of the Nam-Eup, Chungcheongnam-gu, Jeju-do.

B. On September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff received a demand from the Defendant to submit documents related to the deliberation on road excavation to connect waterworks, and submitted a plan for the occupation and use of the road (i.e., Jeju City construction and the excavation). However, on November 28, 2012, the Plaintiff was notified that the Plaintiff’s application for the occupation and use of the road (i.e., excavation) was rejected (hereinafter “instant rejection of the deliberation”).

C. Accordingly, on December 10, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition to return the instant application for permission (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”) for the following reasons. A.

The rejection of the deliberation on road management laid underground as a water museum - The failure to implement the legal prior procedure due to the rejection of the result of the deliberation on road management in Jeju under Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act;

B. Provisions that are in conformity with other Acts and subordinate statutes - The rejection of the deliberation on road management to comply with this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes pursuant to Article 4 (1) 6 of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act (hereinafter “Sized Petroleum Act”), which are in violation of the provisions of this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes (hereinafter “the grounds for recognition”), are without dispute. The rejection of the deliberation of this case by the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of Gap’s evidence 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence 2-8, and the overall purport of the pleading, is unlawful as a measure deviating from and abusing discretion, and further, it is difficult to view that the deliberation decision constitutes “reasons that is not in conformity with other Acts and subordinate statutes”

Therefore, the rejection of the application for permission of this case is illegal as the issue of whether or not to permit the occupation and use of a road (the excavation) is illegal.

The defendant's motion for permission of this case is asserted.