On April 10, 2019, the defendant's business place for the part of the corridor in the disposition of the fire-fighting system against the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

A. On April 30, 1999, the business license of danri-si B was granted for Gari-si B’s underground building C, D, E, F, G, H, and I. After completing the report on succession to the status of business on October 8, 2009, the Plaintiff operated the dan dan (hereinafter “instant dan”) with the trade name “J” at the said place.

B. On April 2019, the Defendant visited the instant dan pursuant to the civil petition related to the violation of the Fire Services Act and the Fire Services Act, and confirmed that the instant dan is operating by occupying the parts of the public corridor and underground K, L, and M, in addition to the above Gadan, the permission for business was granted.

CD E K L M H FGI

C. On April 10, 2019, the Defendant changed the internal structure of the place of business of publicly-used establishments (the increase of the area of the public corridor occupation and the place of business) to the Plaintiff on the ground of fire prevention, installation, maintenance, and safety control of fire-fighting systems (hereinafter “Fire-Fighting System Act”).

(3) The instant disposition is based on Articles 5, 9, and 10 of the Act on the Improvement of Internal Structure and Restoration of Safety Facilities, etc., or the issuance of a certificate to complete safety facilities, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

3) Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate in the entirety of the arguments and arguments, and the facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion that the grounds for the disposition presented by the Defendant unspecified to the extent that the instant dan actually occupied the public corridor, and if the business area of the instant dan exceeded the business license area, it cannot be found that there was any specific violation, such as whether the relevant area was a certain part of the business license.

Therefore, given that the instant disposition was not specified to the extent that the grounds for the disposition are recognizable, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. A business license for the entertainment bar of this case is a violation of the principle of trust protection and abuse of discretionary power.