Scope of the owner or lessee of a building with a lot number adjacent to Article 3(2)7 (d) of the Public Notice of Criteria for Permission for Liquefied-gu Gas Business under the delegation of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act

In light of the contents of the provision of Article 1 of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act and the standard of permission for business under the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, mainly to prevent infringement of public interest caused by explosion of liquefied petroleum gas which is a dangerous substance, etc., the owner or lessee of the building on the site is interpreted to include the owner or lessee of the building in the area where it might cause damage exceeding several people recognized under social norms due to explosion of liquefied petroleum gas which is normally stored in the application site. Therefore, if the application for permission for change of the place of sale is located between the site or a road of 6.7 meters wide from other site and the width of 6.7 meters wide from the site and the site is not in contact with the above application site, but in the area where it is anticipated to cause fatal damage due to explosion of liquefied petroleum gas which is a dangerous substance, etc., the owner or lessee of the building on the site is included in the lot number of the building adjacent to the application for permission for change of the above site.

Article 3 of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 3 of the same Act

Rule 30

Head of Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan Government

1. The original claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition of refusing to change the liquefied petroleum gas sales business made against the plaintiff on July 3, 1989 by 29230-9920 shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

In light of Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 1 through 9 (the same shall apply 1 through 7,10,12), Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6-1, and 2-1, each of the above statements Nos. 3, 4-1, and 6-1, and 6-2 without dispute over the establishment, the plaintiff has been operating with permission for the sale of liquefied petroleum gas with the trade name of the same light gas company from November 22, 1983, the plaintiff was in operation with permission for the sale of liquefied petroleum gas from November 2, 1983 to 4, 734-3, the plaintiff was in a narrow place of the above business due to the expansion of the scale and difficulties in daily work and safety management due to increase in daily traffic, the plaintiff purchased part of the above building site and building No. 588-40 of the above ground, and decided to extend the use of the building and its incidental facilities, etc.

Although Article 3(2)7(d) of the Busan Jin-gu Public Notice provides that the owner of a building or lessee of a lot number adjacent to the application area for permission shall obtain consent from the owner of the building or lessee, the provision that sets the standards for permission by the permission-granting authority to recover natural freedom should be strictly interpreted. Therefore, the owner or lessee of a lot number adjacent to the public notice of the Busan Jin-gu public notice should be deemed to be the owner or lessee of the building on the lot number which is naturally and physically connected to the place where permission is to be granted, and the owner or lessee of the building on the lot number which is naturally and physically connected, but the defendant's disposition which rejected the application for permission to change the plaintiff's business due to the absence of consent from the owner, etc.

Therefore, Article 3 (2) of the Act provides that a person who wishes to engage in the above-mentioned business shall obtain permission from the head of the Gu, and Article 3 (1) of the Decree provides that the permission standards shall not be undermined for the public interest, and Article 8 (2) of the Decree provides that the permission standards may be established for the above-mentioned building owner or lessee within 7 meters wide of 80,000 if the above-mentioned building size of 80,000 Busan 8,000 7,000 7,0000 7,0000 86,000 7,000,0000 86,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000,000 7,06,000,000,00

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)