1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

A. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff received designation as a tobacco retailer (hereinafter “instant original disposition”) from the head of Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Seoul, as his/her place of business, of “D stores” (hereinafter “instant place of business”).

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s Intervenor, around August 2015, operated tobacco retail business at the place of business after receiving a disposition of designation as tobacco retailer, with the “F store” located in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu (hereinafter “instant neighboring place of business”) from the head of Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si (Seoul) as its place of business.

C. On October 2, 2015, the Intervenor filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the original disposition of this case with the Defendant.

On December 30, 2015, the Defendant rendered a ruling revoking the original disposition of this case (hereinafter “instant ruling”) on the ground that “Although the distance between the instant place of business and the nearby place of business falls short of 50 meters (a divided G store from the instant place of business is difficult to be deemed an independent store, and thus, is illegal as it is illegal to designate the Plaintiff as a tobacco retailer.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 8, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the ruling of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion No. 1 sets forth the grounds for the instant ruling as follows: “The Plaintiff’s designation as tobacco retailers and thereafter failed to meet the criteria for designation as provided by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance pursuant to Article 16(2)3 of the Tobacco Business Act.”

However, the distance between the instant place of business and the neighboring place of business after the original disposition of this case was not changed.

There is no ground for the ruling of this case.

② Since the G store divided from the instant place of business (hereinafter “instant G store”) is an independent store, the instant place of business and the instant store.