1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to display outdoor advertisements to install street signboards (standard 9m x 3.95m, employer’s bar board and LED) on the front-gu B rooftop of Jeonjin-gu, Seoul, Seoul, for permission to do so, and installed the above signboards after obtaining permission from the Defendant (hereinafter “first application” and “first permission”).

B. On September 27, 2017, the Defendant revoked the first permission on the ground that, as a result of on-site verification, the standards of outdoor advertisements installed according to the first permission do not coincide with the permitted matters.

C. Accordingly, on October 18, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for permission to the Defendant with the same content as the first application and obtained the same permission from the Defendant on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second permission”) d.

On January 23, 2018, the Defendant revoked the second permission on the ground that the second permission was granted to the Plaintiff by falsity, and ordered the removal of the said signboards installed by the Plaintiff.

E. After that, on July 30, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing KRW 5 million for enforcement fines on the Plaintiff on the ground that the order for removal was not implemented (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Jeollabuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 2, 2018, and the same month.

5. The written ruling was served on the Plaintiff.

G. On November 4, 2019, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay KRW 5 million for the enforcement fine imposed upon the instant disposition by December 2, 2019.

(hereinafter “Notification of this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not obtain the second permission by fraud or other improper means, and there is no other reason to revoke the second permission.