1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows, except for adding the following contents to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, in supplement of the argument in the first instance trial, the provision of this case is applied only when the proprietor of the facility is the same as the owner of the facility for use, the following point of view is unreasonable.

① Even if a slaughterhouse restructuring business entity is equipped with physical facilities according to the slaughterhouse restructuring business entity under the slaughterhouse Restructuring Act, no new business license may be granted unless the existing slaughterhouses are merged. The Plaintiff, even if equipped with new equipment, could not newly obtain a slaughterhouse business license, and consulted with other slaughterhouses at the time, but lost the opportunity to continue business due to the receipt of the instant report. This would infringe on the interests of the business entity legally protected.

② If a successful bidder succeeds to the status of a business operator, a new business license is granted to an intervenor who did not meet the conditions for the consolidation of slaughterhouses under the Slaughter Restructuring Act, and a new business license is granted to the intervenor and the restructuring fund is granted to the intervenor, which gives unfair preference to the intervenors.

In addition, since the intervenor does not operate the slaughterhouse at the present time with the intention to obtain only the right to business license, rather than to operate his business, it is unreasonable to transfer the status of the intervenor to the position of the slaughterhouse.

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court based on the overall purport of the arguments.

(1) The first instance court has recognized.