1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which partially accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments and the deletion of the designated party B of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition, which applied the changed condition of permission, is unlawful, even though it is required to review whether or not to renew the license according to the previous condition of permission rather than the changed condition of permission, on April 2, 2014, because the Plaintiff did not obtain the changed permit of intermediary wholesale business from the Defendant.

However, although the Plaintiff’s permission for intermediate wholesale business was enforced on January 10, 2013 by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Agricultural and Fishery Products Agricultural and Fishery Products Wholesale Market (hereinafter “amended Ordinance”), the expiration of the permission period is December 31, 2015, which is after the enforcement of the amended Ordinance, and the re-permission for intermediary wholesale business is also made on October 2015, which is after the enforcement of the amended Ordinance, and the application of the amended Ordinance on the renewal of intermediary wholesale business in this case cannot be deemed as retroactively applying the amended Ordinance on the facts or legal relations that have already been completed or terminated. Since it is apparent that there is no transitional provision that the former Ordinance on the application for renewal of permission was applied to the Plaintiff’s application for intermediary wholesale business after the enforcement of the amended Ordinance, and even if the Plaintiff’s application for renewal of permission was not issued to the Plaintiff during the calculation period of the monthly average transaction performance, which becomes the conditions of permission at the time of filing an application for renewal, in accordance with the purport of the amended Ordinance, it also applies to the Plaintiff’s internal guidelines.