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 July 2014, the Plaintiff initially operated a singing room in Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong, asked the Defendant’s employees about whether a change in the type of business can be conducted as an entertainment tavern, and confirmed that it is possible for

B. Accordingly, on August 8, 2014, the Plaintiff is operating an entertainment drinking house under the trade name of “C” at the same place (hereinafter “instant place of business”) with a business license for an entertainment drinking club (hereinafter “instant business license”) granted by the Defendant.

C. On May 27, 2016, the Defendant revoked the instant business license by deeming that “The instant business license was unlawful since the instant place of business was a planned control area, in violation of Article 76 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and Article 71(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even though it was an area for which the business license for entertainment tavern was not permissible.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition infringed the Plaintiff’s trust interest because it revoked the beneficial administrative disposition.

It is a question whether or not the principle of proportionality has been violated.

B. Where there is a defect in a relevant legal administrative act, the agency may revoke it on its own, even without a separate legal basis. However, when revoking a beneficial administrative disposition, it shall be limited to cases where the public interest needs to be revoked by comparing and comparing the needs of the public interest to be revoked, the right to obtain benefits to be suffered by the parties due to the cancellation, and the infringement of the protection of trust and the stability of legal life, etc. and where it is so strong that the public interest needs to justify disadvantages