1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff A is a co-owner of the F-ownership of the building E-dong Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant condominium”) and the lessee of the instant condominium G.

Plaintiff

B is the owner of the instant condominium H.

B. On July 18, 2008, the Defendant filed an application for the registration of the opening of a superstore in the name of I with respect to the remainder (hereinafter “the instant superstore”) of the instant aggregate building except the part which the J (hereinafter “J”) completed the registration of a superstore, and the Defendant accepted the said application around that time.

C. A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) filed a report with the Defendant on the basis of Article 12(2)2(a) of the former Distribution Industry Development Act (amended by Act No. 14997, Oct. 31, 2017; hereinafter “former Distribution Industry Development Act”) with the consent of 203 large-scale store occupants of the instant case from 284 to 203 large-scale store managers.

After completing a field investigation, the Defendant accepted the above report on September 19, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including Serial number); Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition of the Plaintiffs’ assertion should be revoked on the following grounds.

1) Article 12(2)2(a) of the former Distribution Industry Development Act provides that “The consent of at least 2/3 of the shop occupants shall be determined based on the number of stores located in the instant superstore, not on the number of shop occupants. Nevertheless, the Defendant determined that the agreement based on the number of stores located in the instant superstore rather than the number of shop occupants (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s first assertion”).

(2) Article 12(2) of the former Distribution Industry Development Act, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion.