1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B filed an application with the Defendant for designation of tobacco retailers whose place of business is Young-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu (hereinafter “instant place of business”) and received designation as a tobacco retailer from the Defendant on June 24, 2016 (hereinafter “instant designation disposition”).

B. On March 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for designation as tobacco retailer with the Defendant to engage in tobacco retail business in the building D (hereinafter “instant building”) located far away from approximately 20 meters from the instant place of business.

C. On March 14, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant building would not be designated as a tobacco retailer (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant building was investigated as “incompeting the distance between the places of business” pursuant to Article 16 of the Tobacco Business Act and Article 7-3(2)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act as “incompeting the distance between the places of business” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the designation of this case is merely that a person who operates a convenience store at a place less than 100 meters away from the building of this case is designated as a tobacco retailer in his name in order to give priority to tobacco sales rights. At the instant business establishment, tobacco is not actually sold, and the Plaintiff submitted relevant evidence to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant should revoke the designation of this case pursuant to Article 17 (1) 5 of the Tobacco Business Act, and in this case, the building of this case does not conflict with the provision on the distance restriction between business offices under the Tobacco Business Act, and thus the plaintiff should be designated as a tobacco retailer, but the disposition of this case rejecting the plaintiff's request for designation of tobacco retailer was made. This goes beyond the defendant's duty's attitude and the scope of discretionary power, and thus, it must be revoked illegally

(b) relation.