1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The following facts in the course of the ruling are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including the branch numbers where no special indication is made; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, and there is no counter-proof.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) around November 1, 1992 was designated by the head of the Si/Gu of Daegu Metropolitan City as a tobacco retailer with respect to the ESFer (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor’s place of business”) among the Damdong-gu D apartment shops in Daegu-gu.

B. Around February 18, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for designation as tobacco retailer with respect to the foregoing apartment building G G (H store in front and rear; hereinafter “Plaintiff’s business establishment”) with the head of the Gangseo-gu Metropolitan City, Daegu, for designation as the tobacco retailer on February 21, 2019.

C. On this issue, the Intervenor filed an administrative appeal against the Defendant claiming that the Plaintiff’s business office falls short of the requirements for designation as tobacco retailers under the relevant statutes, and requesting the revocation of the disposition of designation as tobacco retailers against the Plaintiff.

On April 29, 2019, on the ground that the distance between the Plaintiff’s business office and the Intervenor’s business office falls short of the distance of 50 meters as stipulated in Article 16(2)3 of the Tobacco Business Act and Article 7-3(2)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Defendant rendered a ruling revoking the disposition of designating a tobacco retailer to the Plaintiff of the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City Suwon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant ruling”).

The statutes related to the adjudication of this case are as shown in attached Form 2.

2. The road in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s alleged office and the Intervenor’s office is a place which is practically open to the public for the passage of an unspecified person or vehicle, and thus, falls under the “place used for general traffic” as prescribed by Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Road Traffic Act, and

Therefore, the plaintiff.