1. The Defendant’s disposition not to select an operator of a gas station in a development restriction zone against the Plaintiff on August 22, 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 3, 2012, the Defendant: (a) revised the plan for the placement of gas stations within the development restriction zone so that two gas stations may be additionally installed between C underground tea located in Gangseo-gu, Busan and E (Si boundary) Kimhae-si; (b) on the same day, the Defendant announced the plan for the placement of gas stations within the development restriction zone so that two gas stations may be additionally installed; and (c) made a public announcement for the recruitment of gas stations operating operators (hereinafter “instant recruitment announcement”); (d) at the time of designation of the development restriction zone (1) as at the time of designation of the development restriction zone (29 December 29, 1971), the Defendant was a person who was residing in the area at the time of designation of the development restriction zone (1) as at the time of designation of the development restriction zone (1) as a person who owned the housing or land in the development restriction zone (including a person residing outside the development restriction zone for entering the development restriction zone

B. On the same day, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of an operator of the gas station, and on August 22, 2012, the Defendant rendered the Plaintiff a disposition not to select an operator of the gas station (hereinafter referred to as “disposition not to select an operator of the gas station”) on the grounds that “the Plaintiff transferred the gas station to outside of a development-restricted zone and does not comply with the

(c) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on December 11, 2012, which was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, but the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on December 11, 2012. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence 1 through 3-2, and Eul’s evidence 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s qualification requirements for application for the instant recruitment notice contain not only incomplete contents but also non-conforming elements serving the purport of Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, and thus, the instant disposition based on such requirements is unlawful. 2) The instant disposition is unlawful.