1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant for a liquefied petroleum gas filling business (container) with the content of installing a liquefied petroleum gas filling station with a storage capacity of at least 100 tons (hereinafter “instant filling station”) in the name of “C” on the ground (hereinafter “instant initial permission”).

B. On March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained permission for change of liquefied petroleum gas filling business with a content of adding tank charging business fixed to automobiles from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant permission for change”) (hereinafter “instant permission”), including the initial permission and the instant permission for change.

C. On April 7, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the instant permission pursuant to Article 13(1)2 of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act (hereinafter “Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not commence business within one year from the date the Plaintiff obtained permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful.

1) The modification of the instant permission is not a mere modification of the instant first permission, but a new permission to add a tank charging business fixed on a motor vehicle. Since the Plaintiff intended to run a motor vehicle charging business from the beginning of the beginning, the permission in the “date of obtaining permission” under Article 13(1)2 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act does not mean the instant initial permission, but means the modification of the instant permission, which is a new permission.

Therefore, the Defendant’s attempt to commence the business before the lapse of the one-year period from March 28, 2016, which was the date of the instant permission for change.