1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s change in the position of tobacco retailers against the Plaintiff on November 6, 2018.

Details of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a mutual convenience store (the trade name before and after the modification is referred to as “D” and the store in this case is referred to as “instant store”) with the trade name of “D” from the building located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Dong-gu B and C (hereinafter referred to as “C”).

B. On November 2, 2011, the Plaintiff was designated as a tobacco retailer under Article 16 of the former Tobacco Business Act (amended by Act No. 10786, Jun. 7, 2011; hereinafter “former Tobacco Business Act”) and Article 7(11) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Tobacco Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 388, Dec. 27, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Tobacco Business Act”).

C. On October 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a change of the location of the retailer business office (hereinafter “instant application”) to change the location of the instant store from C to C and E in order to expand the instant store by combining C and the instant building E (hereinafter “E”).

On November 6, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting the instant application on the ground that it falls short of 50 meters of the distance requirement between neighboring tobacco retailers' stores under the proviso of Article 4 (2) 3 of the Regulations on the Criteria, etc. for Designation of Tobacco Retailers in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (wholly amended by Rule 96 of the Regulations on the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon Metropolitan City, Apr. 26, 2019; hereinafter referred to as the "Rules on the Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City").

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 4, and the purport of the entire pleading as to the validity of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's assertion as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, is not a ground for disposition of the plaintiff's assertion, and the plaintiff's assertion as to the store of this case was partially amended by Regulation No. 864, Oct. 17, 2014.