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 June 28, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant to display outdoor electronic displays (a.e., 16 meters wide, 3 meters high, 11.3 meters high, hereinafter “instant rooftop advertisements”) with the content “for public use advertisements, at least 50%, commercial advertisements less than 50%,” and the display period “from February 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018.”

B. On March 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission for extension of display of the rooftop advertisements of this case, and the Defendant rejected the application with the Plaintiff on April 10, 2018 for the following reasons:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). A.

The rooftop advertisements of this case are advertisements that can be displayed only by the fifth anniversary ( March 31, 2018) from the enforcement date of the above public announcement ( April 1, 2013) pursuant to subparagraph (c) and (d) of the Addenda of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice on Designation and Display Restriction of Outdoor Advertisements (No. 2013-81).

B. The display and installation place of the rooftop advertisements of this case is no longer extended because they are located in a general residential area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act prohibited from installation of rooftop advertisements pursuant to Articles 15 and 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management of Outdoor Advertisements, etc. and Promotion of Outdoor Advertisement Industry.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The installation and advertisement display of the rooftop advertisements of this case were allowed for the last 20 years, and accordingly, the Plaintiff trusted that the Plaintiff may enjoy the right to purchase the rooftop advertisements of this case by obtaining permission for the extension of the display period. Thus, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of the Plaintiff’s legitimate trust. 2) The instant disposition is based on the public interest, “the creation of a safe and pleasant living environment,” which is the basis of the instant disposition, and other public interest and private interest, which can be gained through the extension of the rooftop display of this case.