1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. One half of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 1, 2011, the Defendant designated a tobacco retailer against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2011 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s business establishment”) from the first floor of the 1st floor above the wife population C in the Plaintiff’s tolerance-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s business establishment”).

With respect to retailing tobacco in the course of operating the tobacco, the former Tobacco Business Act (amended by Act No. 12269, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) on June 1, 2011

(2) Around June 2013, the Plaintiff removed the Plaintiff’s business office as a tobacco retailer pursuant to Article 16(1). Around that time, the Plaintiff reported that the Plaintiff will suspend the tobacco retail business from June 3, 2013 to November 30, 2013 pursuant to Article 22-2 of the former Tobacco Business Act.

B. The Defendant’s designation of a tobacco retailer for B on August 21, 2013 1) B as a tobacco retailer for B is as follows: (a) the F convenience store is the first floor of a building with the 3rd floor above the 3rd floor above the 3rd floor in the Man-si.

Article 16(1) and (4) of the former Tobacco Business Act and the former Enforcement Rule of the Tobacco Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 397, Jan. 29, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) with respect to retail of tobacco in the course of operating the tobacco business.

(2) In order to determine whether B satisfies the criteria for designation of a tobacco retailer under Article 7(1)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Tobacco Business Act and Article 4(1) of the former Rules on the Criteria for Designation of a Tobacco Retailer for the purpose of determining whether B meets the criteria for designation of a tobacco retailer under Article 7(1) of the former Rules of the Tobacco Business Act (amended by Rule No. 714, Oct. 14, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Defendant requested the Korea Tobacco Seller’s Association to investigate the distance, etc. of B’s business office and the Plaintiff’s business office on August 13, 2013 pursuant to the proviso to Article 7(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Tobacco Business Act and Article 4(1) of the Ordinance on the Fact-Finding of Designation of a Tobacco Retailer for the purpose of examining whether B’s business office and the Plaintiff’s business office are located.

◆ 구 「담배사업법」(2014. 1. 21. 법률 제12269호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제16조(소매인의 지정) ①...